Category Archives: Sex

Cakes, lesbians and Christianity

Image result for wedding cake public domain

(courtesy public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

This article has nothing to do with the constitutional rights of USA citizens but is to address whether the ā€˜Sweet Cakesā€™ case presents the only Christian response.

The battle over cakes for lesbian weddings

There has been a long running battle in Gresham, Oregon (with implications across the USA) over a cake shop that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. The couple who own ā€˜Sweet Cakes by Melissaā€™, Aaron & Melissa Klein, are Christians and cited their Christian convictions to support what they did in refusing to make thecake.

This is the outcome, as reported in The Oregonian, July 02, 2015:

The owners of a shuttered Gresham bakery must pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake, the state’s top labor official said Thursday.

State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay the women for emotional and mental suffering that resulted from the denial of service. The Kleins had cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in refusing to make the cake.

Avakian’s ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, had discriminated against the Portland couple on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation’s culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian’s final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins’ religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry” (Rede 2015).

This article, ā€˜Sweet Cakes owners respond to firestorm over wedding cake decisionā€™ (Kopta 2013), indicated that the Kleinā€™s business, ā€˜Sweet cakes by Melissaā€™, has closed its shop in Gresham OR and is operating from the coupleā€™s house. The website indicates it is now called, ā€˜Sweet Cakesā€™.

Image result for wedding public domain

(public domain)

A different Christian approach

I am sympathetic to the stand that the Kleins have taken, based on the media evidence available to me. I think I understand why they did it (even though Iā€™m an Aussie, my family and I have lived for 7 years in the USA and Canada). I take a different perspective to that of the Kleins of ā€˜Sweet Cakesā€™ in my response. Here is my thinking.

If I were running an automotive and industrial spare partsā€™ business and a lesbian couple came in and wanted parts for their motor vehicle, I would be faced with a normal sales pitch. I would sell them the parts. Before I sold them, I would not ask about their sexual relationship because helping with the fixing of the vehicle is not an endorsement of the homosexual relationship. To be honest, my asking about the sexuality of the relationship is irrelevant when selling car parts to them. I would not be checking if the car was being used for their lesbian wedding. Even if I knew that were the case, I would still sell them the spare parts because that would be a business decision that had nothing to do with sexual behaviour.

The cake shop, just like a florist business, that sells all kinds of items to all kinds of people for a wedding should not be dealing with the sexual relationship. The cake shop is selling cakes to whomever – all people in the community – including homosexuals, adulterers, promiscuous sex addicts, murderers, thieves, good living people, etc. The cake shop’s business is to sell cakes, without asking about their morality. Thatā€™s a non-issue when selling cakes, is my view.

Marrying them is another issue

When it comes to marrying the couple, we are in a different league as homosexual marriage is clearly endorsing homosexuality if the celebrant marries such people. It then does become a moral issue. As a marriage celebrant, I would refuse to marry them because of my being convinced from Scripture that homosexuality is wrong and I should not be sanctioning it through celebrating a homosexual marriage.

I see a difference between doing business with homosexuals – which all businesses should want to do – and advocating for homosexuality through a church minister or civil celebrant conducting a homosexual marriage.

Biblical reasons against homosexual marriage

Image result for wedding public domain

(public domain)

These are the biblical reasons against homosexuality that flow on to homosexual marriage:

blue-corrosion-arrow-small Take a read of Leviticus 18:22 (NLT): ā€˜Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sinā€™. So the Old Testament law identifies the practice of homosexuality as committing a detestable sin. No genuine Christian should want to promote such a view.

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallĀ Romans 1:26-27 (NLT) puts homosexual actions into the category of shameful desires and those who practised them suffered the penalty before God that they deserved. They were the actions of men and women who burned with lustful desires: ā€˜That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deservedā€™.

blue-corrosion-arrow-small Where will these unrighteous sinners be with God at death? The sin of homosexuality is among a list of other sins. First Corinthians 6:9-10 (NLT) is very clear: ā€˜Donā€™t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Donā€™t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat peopleā€”none of these will inherit the Kingdom of Godā€™. Those who practice homosexuality and these other sins will not inherit Godā€™s kingdom. By inference, they will go to the other kingdom ā€“ of darkness and of Satan.

So the Bible is crystal clear that those who have homosexual, lustful desires and who practise homosexual acts, practise detestable sin, have shameful desires, and will not inherit Godā€™s kingdom. There does not have to be a statement in the Bible, ā€˜Thou shalt not practise homosexual marriageā€™, because Scripture is clear that homosexual desires and practice involve practising sin that, if not forgiven, prevent one from entering Godā€™s kingdom. Thus, homosexual marriage is always against Godā€™s will because it involves sinful thoughts and actions of homosexual sin.

Thereā€™s a further reason: Godā€™s view of marriage

Godā€™s view is in support of heterosexual relationships that lead to marriage. This is seen in the ā€˜one fleshā€™ heterosexual relationship that is stated in the Old and New Testaments:

designBlue-smallĀ Genesis 2:24 (NLT): ā€˜This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into oneā€™. Thus, the one flesh relationship (probably referring to sexual intercourse) is between a man and his wife, i.e. between a man and a woman. Heterosexuality is Godā€™s order and not homosexuality or bisexuality.

designBlue-small Jesus repeated the same teaching in Matthew 19:5 (NLT), ā€˜And he said, ā€œThis explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into oneā€ā€™.

designBlue-small The apostle Paul affirmed the same message in Ephesians 5:31 (NLT, ā€˜As the Scriptures say, ā€œA man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into oneā€ā€™.

I recommend the article from the Got Questions? site, What is a Christian definition of when marriage begins?

See my articles:

Conclusion

Image result for wedding public domain

(public domain)

These are just some thoughts from a Christian who is in the process of growing in Christ and who does not endorse the Christian view taken by the ā€˜Sweet Cakesā€™ owners.

The view adopted here is that Christians in business sell to whoever wants to purchase their products. No business that seeks to make a profit from sales needs to ask questions such as: Are you an adulterer, paedophile, homosexual, prostitute or promiscuous sexual addict? That question does not relate to selling car parts, burgers, furniture or cakes.

However, it does become an issue when a marriage celebrant or Christian minister is required to perform weddings of homosexuals. That would be endorsing sinful homosexual behaviour (from a biblical perspective) and should not be promoted ā€“ as I, a Christian, understand the Christian view from Scripture and conscience. It would be a matter of conscience and Christian conviction at that point and I would refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony for homosexual marriage.

Works consulted

Kopta, C 2013. Sweet Cakes owners respond to firestorm over wedding cake decision. Investigators 2, KATU News, September 2. Available at: http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Sweet-Cakes-responds-to–222094901.html (Accessed 9 July 2015).

Rede, G 2015. Sweet Cakes: State orders Oregon bakery owners to pay $135,000 for denying service to same-sex couple. The Oregonian (OregonLive), 02 July. Available at: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_state_orders_orego.html#comments (Accessed 9 July 2015).

 

Copyright Ā© 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 November 2015.

The bashing of Fred Nile’s views on ABC TV (Australia)

By Spencer D Gear

The Reverend and Honourable
Fred Nile
MLC

Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC.JPG

Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales

(courtesy Wikipedia)

Australian Broadcasting Corporation logoType
Statutory corporationAvailability
WorldwideHeadquarters
ABC Ultimo Centre
700 Harris Street
Ultimo 2007, SydneyBroadcast area: Australia

Owner
Government of Australia

(courtesy Wikipedia)

If you want to see the mass media bias against Christians, watch what secular journalists do to a politician who is an evangelical Christian operating from a biblical worldview in his or her policies. Thatā€™s what I saw on Thursday, 16 April 2015 in the Australian ABC TV programme, 7.30. See, ā€˜Fred Nile: Controversial Christian Democrat MP poised to hold balance of power in New South Wales parliamentā€™.

Here the ABC proceeded to expose Fred Nile MP (Upper House, New South Wales parliament), who is ā€˜renowned for campaigning on social issues. He opposes gay marriage, gay adoption, Islamic face coverings, and wants limits on halal food in Australian supermarketsā€™. The ABCā€™s bagging of him continued, ā€˜But despite his long history of activism, he does not understand why some people call him controversialā€™.

Fredā€™s response was:

“It always surprises me, because I’m the most non-controversial person you could get,” he said.

“Everything I believe is just so ā€“ in my opinion ā€“ mainstream and ordinary.

“The only controversy comes because there are groups of people who oppose what I’m saying.”

Then 7.30 proceeded to expose Nileā€™s approach to Muslim immigration:

Rev Nile once called for a halt to Muslim immigration, and now he fears that a larger Islamic community will try to impose sharia law.

“There are some dangers that Australians should appreciate,” he said.

“Once [the Muslim population] gets to 5 per cent or 10 per cent, it’s not that the Australians change [but] the Muslims change and become more militant and more demanding.”

The opponents on ABC TV

So who does the ABC call on to oppose Fred Nile?

Islamic Friendship Association Spokesman Keysar Trad condemned Mr Nile’s statement.

“I’m very disappointed with Fred Nile’s contribution to New South Wales,” he said.

“As a man of God, as a Reverend, you’d expect him to be inclusive, you’d expect him to reach out with love and compassion and peace towards others.

“But what we’ve seen from him over the last couple of decades is vitriol, divisiveness and fear mongering about Islam and Muslims.”

Then there was Greens MP, John Kaye, who spruiked his opposition to Nileā€™s policies:

“Fred has always been the pilot fish of the lunar Right,” Greens MP John Kaye said.

“When homophobia was the cause of the day, Fred was right there as their man in parliament.

“Now it’s hatred of Muslims, and fear of Muslims, whether it’s mosques or halal food, Fred is their voice in parliament.”

Mr Kaye said he expected Rev Nile to vote with the Government on most issues.

“He is the Government’s patsy,” he said.

Enter illogical thinking

By calling Fred Nile ā€˜the pilot fish of the lunar Rightā€™, John Kaye is using an ad hominem logical fallacy to put down Nile. What is a logical fallacy? It is illogic in action. But the journalist who did the interviewing of John Kaye did not call him for using such fallacious reasoning. If he called him to task, he could have said something like, ā€˜Why are you labelling Fred Nileā€™s character and actions when you should be dealing with the truth or falsity of his claims about homosexuality, Muslim immigration, halal food and mosques? Thatā€™s false reasoning that you are usingā€™. Hearing that from an ABC journalist would send this viewer into an unnatural tizzy fit. The ABC, based on my past listening and viewing, is not in the habit of giving favourable coverage to Christians who are engaged in the public culture.

Does this contemporary journalist not have the common sense to know what John Kaye did in that kind of response? Kaye did not deal with the issues Nile is raising and their impact on Australian society.

The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Fallacies

The supporters on ABC TV?

Who would you think that ABC TVā€™s 7.30 would bring in support of Fred Nile so that there would be ā€˜balanceā€™ in the programme? Outside of his wife, there was

Not a soul. Not one! clip_image002[4] clip_image003[4] clip_image004[4]

The ABC receives approximately $6.61 billion (over 5 years) in Australian government funding to run its broadcast operations. There are many Christians who live in Australia, so who would any journalist worth his salt choose to engage positively with Fred Nileā€™s views? There was not a single person. So, I sent

A complaint

This is the online bellyache I had against the ABC and its bias:[1]

I’ve just watched your 7.30 programme featuring Fred Nile and his wife in which you proceed to bag Fred Nile for the things he stands for. This was a classic example of ABC bigotry towards this Christian parliamentarian. Who did you choose to oppose him? A Greens MP who proceeded to slam him for what he wants to do about Islamic migration and Fred’s support for the James Packer casino.

If the ABC was to present a balanced programme I’d just about have a heart attack. For every one who opposed Fred on 7.30, you should be presenting one in favour of Fred’s views. That would at least be fair. But Leigh Sales had only the bag in hand to bash Fred Nile’s views.

I’m tired of the bigotry that the ABC presents against those who don’t support the ABC’s agenda. If you did to a Muslim, what you did to Fred, you’d have a Jihad on your hands. But you think that it’s perfectly OK to bash Fred Nile, a Christian, while you receive $2 billion[2] in funding from the Federal Govt. It’s time that the ABC learned what fairness and justice are about.

You slammed Fred Nile with your dose of injustice. What will 7.30 do to change its approach to people who have views with which it disagrees?

P.S. I don’t live in NSW so I can’t vote for Fred Nile but as a Christian, I found what you did to be utterly offensive.

I omitted to mention that one other opponent was featured on 7.30, Islamic Friendship Association Spokesman, Keysar Trad.

The ABCā€™s reply

How do you think that ABC would reply to what I emailed to them? Well, Iā€™m not allowed to tell you. But I can say, from my perspective, it was not favourable towards the content of my complaint to it about Fred Nileā€™s views.

But it did make sure that I couldnā€™t tell you exactly what it said, by making this claim at the end of the email received from a person at ABCā€™s ā€˜Audience and Consumer Affairsā€™ on 20 April 2015. It stated:

The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC’s liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.

I canā€™t even give you my response to this reply because I included some quotes fromĀ the ABCsĀ reply.

Conclusion

The overall emphasis of the 7.30 story on Fred Nile was to paint this politician who could hold the balance of power as an extremist who doesnā€™t represent what the Greens MP or the Islamic association promotes.

Thereā€™s a lesson here for all Christians who want to engage in public issues through cultural apologetics. Be prepared for antagonistic bashing from mass media journalists and their producers.

New South Wales Legislative Council (55th Parliament)

Coat of arms or logo

Upper house (since 1856) of the Parliament of New South Wales

(Courtesy Wikipedia)

Notes


[1] I sent this via an online complaints form to the ABC on Thursday, 16 April 2015, and at my request I received a copy of my complaint by email reply. I await a response from the ABC, but Iā€™m not holding my breath expecting them to do anything by way of change of editorial policy. However, they need to hear my protests and reasons for it.

[2] Malcolm Turnbull MP, Minister for Communications, on his website stated, ā€˜the Government’s continued investment in national broadcasting of more than $6.61 billion over the same five year periodā€™ (FAQs on ABC and SBS, 19 December 2014, Malcolm Turnbull MP).

 

Copyright Ā© 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 November 2015.

Was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah not being hospitable?

John Martin’s rendering of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction (Courtesy Creationwiki)

By Spencer D Gear

I find it disconcerting how wide of the mark some secular journalists can become in their understanding of Scripture. A recent example was that of Elizabeth Farrelly in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper (also online). The article was titled, ā€˜Tenets of democracy get lost in hate stormā€™.[1]

The first line was, ā€˜The sin of sodomy, say biblical scholars, was not homosexual sex but a failure of hospitalityā€™. Really?

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe give this reason behind the ā€˜hospitalityā€™ interpretation of Gen 19 rather than sexual sodomy:

Some have argued that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality, not homosexuality. They base this claim on the Canaanite custom that guarantees protection for those coming under oneā€™s roof. Lot is alleged to have referred to it when he said, ā€œDonā€™t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roofā€ (Gen. 19:8 NIV). So Lot offered his daughters to satisfy the angry crowd in order to protect the lives of the visitors who had come under his roof. Some also claim that the request of the men of the city to ā€œknowā€ (Gen. 19:5 ) simply means ā€œto get acquainted,ā€ since the Hebrew word ā€œknowā€ (yada) generally has no sexual connotations whatsoever (cf. Psalm 139:1 ) (Geisler & Howe 1992:48).

Farrellyā€™s view is that biblical scholars claim that the issue for Sodom & Gomorrah is not the sin of male homosexuality but of being inhospitable.

That is not how the Hebrew scholars who translated the New International Version of the Bible saw it. Their translation of Genesis 19:5 is that the men from every part of Sodom who ā€˜called to Lot, ā€œWhere are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with themā€ā€˜. Thatā€™s not hospitality but sexual perversion.

While the Hebrew word, yada (know),[2] is not mandatory to be translated as ā€˜to have sex withā€™, in 10 of its 12 times in Genesis (see Gen 4:1, 25), it does mean that. We know from Gen 19:8 that it means sexual intercourse as Lot refers to his virgin daughters who had not ā€˜knownā€™ a man, obviously meaning sexual intercourse.

ā€˜Knowā€™ cannot mean a hospitable person getting acquainted with someone else because it is associated with ā€˜a wicked thingā€™ in Gen 19:7. In addition, God said he would be destroying Sodom & Gomorrah in Gen 18:16-33, before the evidence of Gen 19:5, 8.

Elizabeth Farrelly, as a journalist, has violated a fundamental of interpretation in her statement that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual sex but failure to be hospitable. That fundamental of hermeneutics is that the meaning of any text, including Farrellyā€™s writing in The Age, is determined by the context in which it is used. To determine the context for the Sodom situation, one has to go to Genesis 18 and 19. There one finds evidence that the sin of sodomy definitely refers to sexual intercourse between men (homosexuality) and not to inhospitality.

Farrelly concludes her article with these words:

When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot relinquish his angel visitors, his asylum seekers, God punished Sodom for this breach of the sacred duty of welcome. A sodomite was a hard-heart, a jackboot, a repeller of blow-ins.

So I ask again, is Scott Morrison a sodomite? Is Tony Abbott? Are we okay with this?

Farrelly is right off track because she canā€™t be on track with her interpretation of Sodom and the sodomites in Genesis 19. If she gets that context wrong, how can she be correct with her application to Scott Morrison or Tony Abbott?

Am I okay with Farrellyā€™s interpretation of sodomites and application to Morrison and Abbott? Absolutely not! She is pushing her politically correct agenda and it has nothing to do with an accurate, contextual interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah events of Genesis 19.

Therefore, based on the above exposition, it is reasonable to interpret the Genesis 19 passages as referring to something other than Farrellyā€™s view of not being hospitable. It definitely refers to the sin of sexual sodomy, i.e. homosexuality.

Works consulted

Geisler, N & Howe, T 1992. When critics ask: A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Notes


[1] The Age, 25 September 2014. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tenets-of-democracy-get-lost-in-hate-storm-20140924-10lbp4.html#ixzz3EHScfs7W (Accessed 25 September 2014).

[2] Some of the following information is based on Geisler & Howe (1992:48-49).

 

Copyright Ā© 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 November 2015.

The failures of defacto relationships

Symbols Sex Clip Art(courtesy clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Ā It is not unusual to hear people advocating sex before marriage and the benefits of defacto relationships ā€“ cohabitation. Why do people decide to shack up together without marriage? There are many reasons for it that I have heard in general and relationship counselling over many years.

I encountered this fellow, who states he is a nonā€“Christian, on a Christian forum online. He stated:

It IS all about sex.Ā  All objections about shacking up, from time immemorial, are fundamentally based on the belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

What else about a couple living together would someone have objections to?Ā  Sharing meals together?Ā  Sharing housework?Ā  The man seeing the woman early in the morning without her makeup on?Ā  Let’s at least be honest:Ā  a romantically involved couple who decide to live together are announcing to the world that they’re having sex, and this is fundamentally what upsets so many people.[1]

How should I respond? Here goes:[2]

I have two objections to cohabitation before marriage:

(1)Ā Ā  God says it is wrong (see 1 Corinthians 7) and I want to please him. And,
(2)Ā  The statistical information is clear that cohabitation does not lead to long-term relationships, and marriage after cohabitation leads to a high level of break down of marriage.

Let’s look at some basic statistical information:

Take a read of these articles

The second article (Fitzgibbons 2005-2011) states:

In the U.S., cohabitation, not divorce, now poses the biggest challenge to marriage. In 1960: 500,000 and in 2010: 7,529,000 couples cohabitate. More than 60% of marriages are now preceded by cohabitation (Wilcox et al. 2011).

A 2013 report on cohabitation from the National Center for Health Statistics was based on in-person interviews conducted between 2006 and 2010 with 12,279 women, ages 15-44. It demonstrated:

as a first union, 48% of women cohabited with their male partner, up from 43% in 2002 and 34% in 1995;

designQuiltsmall 22 months was the median duration of first cohabitation, up from 20 months in 2002 and 13 months in 1995;

designQuiltsmall 19% of women became pregnant and gave birth in the first year of a first premarital cohabitation and

designQuiltsmall 70% of women without a high school diploma cohabited as a first union, compared with 47% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (Jayson 2013).

About 40 percent of children spend time in a cohabiting household, while 21% of children are born into cohabiting unions (Fitzgibbons 2005-2011).

Also, from the same article:

A. The Harmful Effects of Cohabitation in Relationships

Red Heart

(courtesy i2clipart)

  • A 1992 study of 3,300 cases found that couples who cohabited prior to marriage have a risk for divorce that is about 46% higher than for non-cohabiters (Journal of Marriage and the family: February 1992).
  • Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples (Journal of Health and Social Behavior: September 2000).
  • Women cohabiting relationships are more likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse than married women (National Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002).
  • The more months of exposure to cohabitation, the less enthusiastic couples are about marriage and childbearing (Journal of Marriage & Family: 59, 1997).
  • Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents (Journal of Family Issues: January 1995).
  • Cohabiters tend to not have an ethic of commitment that is as strong as non-cohabiters.Ā  This could explain the high rates of divorce among couples that cohabited prior to marriage (Journal of Marriage and the Family: August 1997).
  • Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose special risks to children (Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social Policy.Ā  New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 2002).
  • By 2000, the total number of unmarried couples in America was almost 4.75 million, up from less than half a million in 1960 (U.S. Census Bureau: 2001).
  • Cohabitation increases acceptance of divorce among young people (Journal of Marriage & Family: 59).
  • Cohabitation can contribute to selfishness and later a lack of openness to children.
  • Respondents who cohabited after divorce or cohabited with their partner in a subsequent marriage reported, on average, lower levels of happiness in the remarriage than remarried respondents who did not cohabit at after the initial divorce (Journal of Marriage and Family: Vol. 68, Number 2. May, 2006).
  • Compared with peers who had not cohabited prior to marriage, individuals who had cohabited reported higher levels of depression and the level of depression also rose with the length of cohabitation. (Alabama Policy Institute: August 2006).
  • The longer couples cohabited before marrying, the more likely they were to resort to heated arguments, hitting, and throwing objects when conflicts arose in their subsequent marriage. A longer length of cohabitation was linked to a greater frequency of heated arguments, even when controlling for spouses’ age. (Alabama Policy Institute: August, 2006)
  • Women in cohabiting relationships are nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than were married women. Within cohabiting relationships, middle-aged women were at greatest risk of being killed. (Shackelford, T.K. & Mouzos, J., 2005. Partner Killing by Men in Cohabiting and Marital Relationships: A Comparative, Cross-National Analysis of Data from Australia and the United States.Ā  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol.30, number 10, 1310-1324.)

The above details are from Richard Fitzgibbons (2005-2011).

Did you notice the first point of this last list? ā€˜A 1992 study of 3,300 cases found that coupled (sic) who cohabited prior to marriage have a risk for divorce that is about 46% higher than for non-cohabiters (Journal of Marriage and the family: February 1992)ā€™. And thatā€™s a 1992 study.

Cohabitation is NOT a good way to go with relationships and marriage. The statistics are out there for all to see.

The Fitzgibbons (2005-2011) article tells of the harmful effects of cohabitation on children. Why donā€™t people take a read and contemplate the harm that cohabitation is doing to the couples in our nations. My friendā€™s marriage ended in divorce a few years ago (she is in her 30s). Since then she has cohabited with 3 different fellows. Only a few weeks ago the third fellow, whom she would have liked to marry, walked out on her, leaving her devastated. She thought the relationship was going well, but he did not want the commitment she was wanting.

What would the stats be like in 2013? We do have some more recent statistical information. See, ā€˜Is Living Together Before Marriage a Good Idea?ā€™

B. Effects of cohabitation on children

This Fitzgibbons (2005-2011) article tells of the harmful effects of cohabitation on children. Why donā€™t people take a read and contemplate the harm that cohabitation is doing to the couples in our nation.

1. The defacto results

Those who cohabit have relationships that donā€™t last very long. Those who cohabit and then marry also have limited relationship longevity.

The statistics should scream at us that shacking up together in a defacto relationship is a bad idea.

C. The claim that porneia did not mean sex before marriage

Red Heart(courtesy 12clipart)

In this same thread on the same forum, I was somewhat shocked to read this kind of statement on a Christian forum about sex before marriage.

“Fornication” was an English word. The Greeks used the word “porneia” which meant “whoremonger, audultery (sic), idolatry.” It never meant sex before marriage.[3]

My counter punch was:[4]

I don’t know where you are obtaining your information about the Greeks and their use of porneia. I suggest that you go to Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon for the NT (I read and teach NT Greek) and you will find that porneia means ‘prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:699, emphasis in original).

We know from what Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he was dealing with the problem of unlawful sexual intercourse outside of marriage. He wrote:

‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality [porneia], each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband’ (1 Cor 7:1-3 ESV).

It is clear from this passage that God’s requirement was against unlawful sexual intercourse – fornication (porneia) – outside of marriage. Therefore, Paul urged the Corinthians ‘concerning the matters about which you wrote’ (1 Cor 7:1) to marry and not have illicit sex outside of marriage. Therefore, it is against God’s Word to advocate sex outside of marriage.

Let me be very practical about the implications. I have just retired after 34 years as a counsellor and counselling manager, mostly with secular Australians. I have spent the last 17 years in a full-time counsellor / counselling manager position and also supervising counsellors.

I wish I did not have to deal with the consequences of illicit sex and what it does to a relationship and marriage. A significant portion of my counselling would have been eliminated if I didn’t have to deal with porneia (fornication) before and after marriage.

I could not begin to tell you of the damage that multiple sexual partners does to a relationship and the impact of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) on a person and relationship. Only 2 weeks ago I was in the emergency department of a major Brisbane public hospital being treated for a collapse associated with my heart disease. In the bed beside me, only separated by a curtain, I heard the horrific screams of woman that went on and on. I overheard an emergency nurse ask her: How many sexual partners have you had in the last 12 months? She had many and the nurse told her that she could have an STD. These are the practical consequences of the practice of porneia (fornication).

What happens with anal sex and the diseases caused? See my articles; (1) Reasons to oppose homosexual marriage and (2) The dangers of anal sex and fisting

I hope you understand by now that there are practical reasons why God tells Christians to avoid fornication, adultery, sex outside of marriage.

And we haven’t dealt with what God says that happens when a man and a woman join in sex – the effects of bonding. See my article, Godā€™s view of sex.

There are biblical and practical reasons why God forbids sex outside of marriage – porneia.

D. Sex outside of marriage not forbidden, she says! Really?

Male Female Symbols Clip Art

(courtesy clker.com)

This person wrote:

I wouldn’t place the idea of sex before marriage in the same category as murderers. No where in the Bible was a personed (sic) punished for having sex out of wedlock, nor does the Bible say a single word about unwed mothers sinning. Mary became pregnant with Jesus before she was married (emphasis added).Ā [5]

This is factually untrue.[6]

1. Old Covenant consequences

I suggested that this person should go back to reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation where she will find the truth about illicit sex outside of marriage.
Take a read of Leviticus 20:10-14,

‘ā€œIf a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you (ESV).

Here, under the Old Covenant, the punishment for illicit sex outside of marriage was death for both perpetrators.

Why, therefore, did this person promoted the lie that nowhere in the Bible was a personĀ  punished for having sex out of wedlock?

As for Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, it was not caused by a joining of a man and a woman so could not be regarded as porneia (illicit sex).

Also, take a read of Leviticus 18:20, ‘You shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her’ (ESV).

2. What about the New Covenant?

I encouraged this person to be accurate in what she wrote about this subject on the forum.

E. Godā€™s view of sex before marriage

Google (public domain)

 

See my articles,

bronze-arrow-smallĀ Ā Godā€™s view of sex.

bronze-arrow-smallĀ  Cooch grass and a biblical view of sex

bronze-arrow-smallĀ Sex at its best

bronze-arrow-smallĀ  Conned by the Condom

bronze-arrow-smallĀ  Why should we oppose homosexual marriage?

 

In summary: Do you want sex at its best?

clip_image002 Wait for the sexual relationship until marriage.

clip_image002[1] If that is too late, confess your sin and remain chaste.

clip_image002[2] Be faithful in marriage.

First Corinthians 7:2-5 (NLT) is a key passage in understanding Godā€™s view of sex at its best (in marriage):

But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

3 The husband should fulfill his wifeā€™s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husbandā€™s needs. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan wonā€™t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

All of that sounds all fashioned, but sex at its best comes with Godā€™s approval and research supports it.

F.Ā  Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the NewTestament and other early Christian literature.[7] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Jayson, S 2013. Cohabitation first is new norm for unmarrieds with kids (online), USA Today, April 4. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/04/cohabitation-families-pregnancy/2050073/ (Accessed 30 January 2014).

Fitzgibbons, R P 2005-2011. The risks of cohabitation (online). maritalhealing.com, available at: http://www.maritalhealing.com/conflicts/risksofcohabitation.php (Accessed 30 January 2014).

G.Ā  Notes


[1] Jim Odom #19, 6 November 2013, Christian Fellowship Forum, Christian Morals, ā€˜Shacking up before marriageā€™. Available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=11&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122551 (Accessed 27 November 2013).

[2] Ibid., Ozspen #41, 27 November 2013.

[3] Ibid., Melissa #34.

[4] Ibid., ozspen #39.

[5] Ibid., Melissa #34.

[6] I wrote the follow as ozspen #40, ibid.

[7] This is ā€˜a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauerā€™s Griechisch-Deutsches Wƶrtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der Ć¼brigen urchristlichen Literaturā€™ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

 

Copyright Ā© 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

The dangers of anal sex and fisting

Sex On The Brain

(courtesyĀ publicdomainpictures.net)

By Spencer D Gear

Anal sex is intercourse via the anus/rectum rather than using the vagina. It is sexual activity that involves inserting the penis in the rear end (anus) rather than the front end (vagina).

What is fisting? ā€˜Fisting is a type of sexual activity that involves using the whole hand (fist) to penetrate the body. People engage in both vaginal fisting ā€” inserting the hand inside the vagina ā€” and anal fisting, inserting the hand into the rectumā€™ (Elizabeth Boskey 2011, Fisting: Sexually Transmitted Diseases [STDs]).

In a reply on a Christian forum, I wrote:

I cannot begin to tell you what happens with anal sex and the diseases caused.

There are practical reasons why God tells Christians to avoid fornication, adultery, sex outside of marriage.

And we havenā€™t dealt with what God says that happens when a man and a woman join in sex ā€“ the effects of bonding. But thatā€™s for another time.

There are biblical and practical reasons why God forbids sex outside of marriage ā€“ porneia.[1]

A mature Christian responded:

I just wanted to add, you mentioned anal sex. This is growing in popularity among the younger generation that doesnā€™t seem to have a clue how physically destructive and dangerous this is.

Our family had a huge discussion on this very subject. My sister who is a counselor talked very frankly to all the young people in our family about how it became such a common practice among heterosexuals and the disastrous physical effects it has on the body.[2]

How should I reply? Be honest, avoid the topic, or give a compromised position that will not cause offense? I chose the line of honesty and gave a[3]

A.Ā  Warning rather than falling victim

If people find this topic too offensive (what follows), I or the moderators can delete it. But I thought that we needed to get back to grassroots here. Warning might be better than becoming a victim. I can put the topic on my homepage and give a link to those who want to visit it.

The topic I have introduced is not new to the medical, psychological and counselling professions. I speak as a long-term counsellor and counselling manager who has recently retired.
For some of the evidence and the danger of anal/rectal sex, I recommend a read of,

Youā€™ll appreciate that this is not a disease restricted to the homosexuals as I know of heterosexuals who are getting into the practice as well. As a counsellor, Iā€™m deeply concerned at what people donā€™t know about anal intercourse and the damage of fisting.

B.Ā  Vaginal vs. anal intercourse and the dangers

Hereā€™s a graphic of the rectum and anus:

clip_image001
Courtesy WebMD

God made the vagina with thick walls for sexual penetration. The rectum and its entrance, the anus, are not designed by God for sexual penetration. Therefore, anal/rectal sex is at a higher risk of disease as medical experts tell us. Iā€™m not inventing this.
God knew what he was about when his law restricted sexual intercourse to a man and woman and in the place that God made for such sexual activity.

Then there is the added problem that comes with ā€˜fistingā€™ in vagina and rectum. See the article, ā€˜Sexual trauma associated with fisting and recreational drugsā€˜.

These may not be nice topics to discuss, but I have to be honest in exposing the consequences of what is happening in our sexualised society.

I donā€™t enjoy having to deal openly with this kind of topic. Iā€™m grieved that people get into it without knowing the consequences. One doesnā€™t have to be a Christian to know of the harm that anal/rectal intercourse and fisting do to the human body.

There are disgusting photos online of fisting action.

C.Ā  Is anal sex safe?

I went to WebMD Sexual Health Center and the article, ā€˜Anal sex safety and health concernsā€™ and learned that anal sex is risky sexual activity:

An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse.

Often referred to simply as anal sex, anal intercourse is sexual activity that involves inserting the penis into the anus. People may engage in anal intercourse, which has health risks, because the anus is full of nerve endings, making it very sensitive. For some recipients of anal sex, the anus can be an erogenous zone that responds to sexual stimulation. For the giving partner, the anus may provide a pleasing tightness around the penis.

While some people find anal sex enjoyable, the practice has downsides and requires special safety precautions.

Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

6pointLight-smallThe anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesnā€™t completely prevent tearing.

6pointLight-smallThe tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus.Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

6pointLight-smallThe anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

6pointLight-smallThe anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections. For heterosexual couples, pregnancy can occur if semen is deposited near the opening to the vagina.

Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay, surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.

Surely this should be sending a strong message to avoid anal sex. The anus and rectum were not made for penetration. The vagina is.

As for fisting, get the gist of the feisty, fantastic, outlandish way of abusing your body ā€“ sexually. Become an advocate for healthy living and give up the practice and recommendation of sexual fisting.

D.Ā  A feisty response

One fellow got rather feisty when I provided a link to this article on Christian Fellowship Forum.Ā  He wrote:

You cited a single article by a doctor as your soul scientific reference — completely without peer review, then launched into an opinion piece based on nothing more than your personal opinion about a subject you’re not qualified to write about with any authority.

Bring in real scientific studies and facts, then your credibility will rise (ā€˜Five things I wish Christians would admit about the Bibleā€™, George #130).

My response was (ozspen #165):

For heaven’s sake, I was writing a popular level article on fisting and the dangers of anal intercourse and I cited an article that was written by Elizabeth Boskey, written or reviewed by a board-certified physician that dealt with the dangers of this activity. It was not written for an academic audience to provide peer-reviewed research articles. However, the information is consistent with the peer-reviewed articles I have read down through my 34 years as a counsellor and counselling manager.

It’s time he got with the programme of why I have a homepage and the nature of my audience. In addition, he is as capable as I to Google peer-reviewed articles that deal with the dangers of anal intercourse. But no, he spoofed at my article because it didn’t provide peer-reviewed information. That was not its purpose. My homepage audience, based on the feedback I receive, is not interested in peer-reviewed material . They want the practical facts of the dangers of such risky sexual behaviour as anal intercourse and fisting.

In this article, The dangers of anal sex and fisting, I included information from the Cancer Health Center which concluded that ā€˜Gay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts Sayā€˜. I provided a link to an article by John Riggs MD on ‘The health risks of gay sex‘. ‘The Gay Bowel Syndrome‘ provided details of the problem and then had a bibliography that provided links to peer-reviewed articles.

As for peer-reviewed journals that document this problem with anal intercourse, see:

  1. Prevalence of Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China: An Updated Meta-Analysis;
  2. Anal sex practices in heterosexual and male homosexual populations: A review of population-based data (Anal sex is known to be an important risk factor for anal cancer);
  3. Anal sex among young people and implications for health promotion: A qualitative study in the UK (British Medical Journal);
  4. A qualitative assessment of health seeking practices among and provision practices for men who have sex with men in Malawi (It found that men who have sex with men (MSM) in Malawi have a disproportionate burden of HIV compared to other adults)
  5. A systematic review of HIV interventions for black men who have sex with men (MSM) (It found that Black men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately burdened by HIV/AID);
  6. Anal sex and associated HIV-related sexual risk factors among female sex workers in Andhra Pradesh, India (Anal sex is associated with STI symptoms, a factor for HIV risk. HIV intervention programmes need to educate female sex workers about the risks associated with anal sex).

Notes:

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Christian Morals, ā€˜Shacking up before marriageā€™, ozspen #39, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=33&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122551 (Accessed 28 November 2013).

[2] Ibid., Noelle #43.

[3] Ibid., ozspen #46.

 
Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.

Could you be conned by the condom message?

clip_image001

clipartlogo.com

By Spencer D Gear

clip_image003

Warning

The information I provide below is not designed to replace the relationship between you, the patient and your primary health professional. If you have questions about the use of condoms and contraception, I urge you to speak with your doctor (in Australia they are called GPs ā€“ general practitioners).

The following details in this article are for your information and consideration only and do not constitute the practice of medicine. I encourage all people who read this to see a licensed medical practitioner if you have questions about sexuality, birth control, various methods of contraception, and all other medical factors relating to sexual intercourse.

However, I encourage you to seek out a GP whose world and life view is consistent with your own regarding sexual morality.

I do not take responsibility for any treatment, procedure, action or medical application that results from reading the information in this article. I urge you to speak with your primary health care provider before engaging in any form of self treatment regarding sexuality.

Ā THINGS THREATENING TEENS

clip_image005THE PREMARITAL SEX CHALLENGE

Suppose you were invited to join a parachute club for one year with 6 of your friends. If the pilot of the plane told you that one of the parachutes would fail that year, would you jump? You probably wouldn’t even get into the plane.

Suppose you are a cricketer (that gives away that I’m an Aussie). At the beginning of the season, the coach tells you that at least 3 out of the 22 young men on the two opposing teams would sustain fatal injuries during the year-long season. Would you sign the permission slip to play?

Young people today face many threats. They are under a lot of pressure ā€“ much more than when I was a teenager about 50 years ago. I want to expose one particular threat that I am deeply concerned about. I’m apprehensive about it because of the damage I have seen it do to so many of our youthā€”all with the permission and promotion of the government, and with the endorsement of the mass media. This concern I am talking about has a failure rate equivalent to the examples I gave of the parachutes: one-in-seven; 3 out of 22 in the two cricket teams.

A report from 2013 stated that

according to mainstream scientific sources, its efficacy has been grossly overstated by its promoters. After the use of just 10 condoms, the probability of at least one failure is 52%, according to the authoritative Contraceptive Technology and other sources.Ā  22 major studies of more than 40,000 condoms used during heterosexual intercourse in five different countries have found that 4.6% of all the condoms broke and 2.5% of them partially or completely slipped off, for a total failure rate of 7.1%.Ā  That means that about 1 in 14 condom uses results in failure.Ā  Failure results in exposure to all the sexually-transmitted diseases that a partner has and may result in pregnancy. Even the highest-quality condoms used in the most effective manner possible by educated, monogamous, adult couples fail at a high rate under real-world conditions (Human Life International 2013).

One of the foci of this article is:

clip_image007publicdomainfiles

I. CONNED BY THE CONDOM?

One of the greatest pressures for you today will come in this form.

clip_image009 IF IT’S NOT ON, IT’S NOT ON!

clip_image009[1] THAT FEELING DOESN’T STOP HIV: SAFE SEX DOES

What is this sex education message saying? If you don’t wear a condom, you will become pregnant. And, if you want to prevent getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), use a condom.

Have you noticed that we rarely hear the term, ā€˜venereal diseaseā€™ today? When I was a youth, when we heard ā€˜venereal diseaseā€™ we knew it was picked up by being sexually promiscuous, sleeping around. But now, the trendy description is ā€˜sexually transmitted diseasesā€™ (STD) or the more politically correct, ā€˜sexually transmitted infectionsā€™ (STI). Those don’t have the same negative stigma as ā€˜venereal diseaseā€™. Sexually transmitted diseases are those that ordinary people getā€”they just happen to be sexually transmitted.

If that’s not enough, we go ahead and give the initials, STI ā€“ that even further diminishes the impact. Our society, which promotes sleeping around, is just trying to make these diseases another public health issue, without relating them to anything moral.

As young people, you are bombarded with the message: ā€˜sex is great whenever you can get it, and that waiting for marriage is for fuddy-duddy’sā€”incredibly old fashionedā€™.

I’ve had it said to me by youth: all kinds of pressures are put on me to have sex, and no-one has given me any good reasons for saying ā€˜Noā€™. That young people are saying, ā€˜Nobody has told me the many good reasons to say, ā€˜Noā€™ to premarital sexā€™, is a tragedy.

One of your greatest threats is that you may be CONNED BY THE CONDOM message. This is one of my major concerns for youth. You are in danger of submitting to the propaganda that condom use will make ā€˜safe sexā€™ possible.

clip_image010 condom

A. DANGER IN THE MAKING

What the government and media don’t trumpet loudly is this:

1.Ā Ā Ā Ā  The ā€˜safe sexā€™ message is a disaster in the making. Condoms have been found to have a failure rate of at least 15.7%. I have yet to see this as a significant emphasis in government or media campaigns.

A 15.7% failure rate for condoms represents the percentage of married women using the condom as a contraceptive, who will become pregnant over the course of a year.

It seems that you also are not told clearly this additional information: It is possible to become pregnant once a monthā€”a woman can conceive only one or two days per month. But we can only guess how high the failure rate for condoms must be in preventing disease, which can be transmitted 31 days of every monthā€”365 days a year. Any sexually transmitted disease can be transmitted at any time during a sexual relationship with an infected person. (This statistic is from Planned Parenthood, USA. See Jones & Forrest 1989:103)

clip_image011 You also will not be told that the failure rate of condoms in the survey I have just mentioned was shockingly higher for certain groups of people: among young, unmarried, minority women the failure rate was over one-in-three (36.3%). Among unmarried Hispanic women in the US, it is as high as 44.5%–that’s approaching one-in-two condoms will fail. (Jones & Forrest 1989:105).

clip_image011[1] You will not be told condoms cannot be accurately tested for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. So researchers have been studying surgical gloves made out of latex, the same material as condoms. They found ā€˜channelsā€™ of 5 microns width penetrated the entire thickness of the glove. (Arnold, Whitman Jr., Fox & Cottier-Fox 1988:19)

clip_image011[2] The HIV virus measures 0.1 of a micron. (Dirruba 1987:1306)

In other words, the latex of condoms has channels through it that are 50 times wider than the HIV virus, which makes it a possibility that the virus could seep through the rubber (latex) of the condom.

You might be saying that those statistics from the late 1980s are out of date and condoms are now more reliable.

Letā€™s check in with William D. Gairdner, in his 2010 article, ā€˜Condomaniaā€™. He reported:

Governments, schools, and media have been united for three decades in a frenzied effort to protect us all from sexual diseases by telling us there is safety in latex. The condom will save us. Pleasure can be snatched from the jaws of disease, or perhaps death. Even Torontoā€™s Globe and Mail has on occasion deigned to lecture us about ā€˜safe-sex fatigue,ā€™ boldly advising that ā€˜condoms are effective against sexually transmitted infection, including HIV.ā€™
This week we learned that the condom is useless against Human Papillomavirus.
But what about HIV, the virus thought to be the cause of AIDS? It would seem utterly sensible to ask whether or not the latex condom will in fact do what we are told, and why it is that information so readily available is so late entering the public mind?
A few years ago I interviewed the then editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., about his research on ā€˜intrinsic flawsā€™ in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves. What he told me was alarming, to say the least, and gives at least a partial answer to the question the Globe raised in its Sex-ed editorial: ā€˜Why, in spite of so much effort, does AIDS keep spreading?ā€™ Roland said that what I am about to relate is ā€˜common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agendaā€™.
Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size (a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.
The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I’ll mention the Canadian test below). Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that ā€˜spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passageā€™.
Roland’s first paper on this alarming subject (in Rubber World, 1993) shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws, ā€˜inherent defects in natural rubber [ranging] between 5 and 70 micronsā€™.
And it’s not as if governments don’t know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported in the same period that ā€˜leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms [is] detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms testedā€™. These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland says a closer reading of Carey’s data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: ā€˜That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this] study…suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public health and welfareā€™. The federal government’s standard tests, he adds, ā€˜cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virusā€™. Such tests are ā€˜blind to leakage volumes less than one microliter – yet this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as many as 100,000 HIV particlesā€™.
Condoms are not the solution to the tragedy of AIDS, he warns. ā€˜It is ludicrous to believe they allow one to safely engage in sexual relations with HIV carriers. Their promotion for that purpose is dangerous and irresponsibleā€™. As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, ā€˜The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis netā€™.
It’s the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different manufacturers revealed ā€˜pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns deepā€™. More relevant to HIV transmission, ā€˜5 micron-wide channels, penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the glovesā€™. He said the presence of such defects in latex ā€˜is well establishedā€™.
Perhaps that is why a review of major studies shows that while condom use may reduce ā€˜ratesā€™ of infection, nevertheless the acknowledged HIV infection rate for couples using condoms is very high, ranging from 13 to 27%. Handing a student a condom to protect against AIDS is like giving him an overcoat to walk across a battlefield. Meanwhile, strict avoidance of sex with infected partners gives a 5,000-fold increase in protection.
For Canada, the story is the same. I investigated this in 1995 and have a letter on file from Health and Welfare Canada explaining that a standard test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort to examine micron-level leakage), revealed that an astonishing 40% of the condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an ā€˜improvedā€™ 28% rate. Why didnā€™t this hit the front page?

2.Ā  The Bible is very clear that God’s purpose for you is to save your sexual relationship until marriage. Sexual purity before marriage and sexual fidelity in marriage are God’s plan. However, I ask you: based on the information I have just shared with you about condoms, do you think youth should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?

No other approach to the epidemic of STDs will work. Abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. That’s exactly what God designed for the maximum sexual joy of human beings. The ā€˜safe sexā€™ message you are getting from schools, universities, the government, the mass media, is a disaster in the making.

There is a word for people who rely on condoms as a method of birth control. We call them ‘parents.’

I believe it is criminal for me or anybody to tell you that that little latex device, called a condom, is ā€˜safeā€™. You are risking life-long pain and even death for a brief encounter of pleasure.

 

B. WHAT WOULD THE PROFESSIONALS SAY?

These figures are somewhat dated, but they are worthy of note. How do you respond to assessments by these professionals?

Dr. Harold Jaffe, chief of epidemiology at the National Centers for Disease Control [USA], said, ā€˜You just canā€™t tell people itā€™s all right to do whatever you want as long as you wear a condom. It (AIDS) is just too dangerous a disease to say thatā€™.[1] Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research at the Walter Reed Army Institute [USA], has said, ā€˜Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protectionā€™ (in Alexander 2013).

What do you think the professionalsā€™ who advocate ā€˜safe sexā€™ would say about the information I have just shared with you, if they were sitting in on my teaching today? Would they call me a scare-monger who is undermining what the government is doing to prevent the spread of AIDS? Would they say I am out of touch?

I had been counselling for 34 years when I retired in 2011, the last 17 years as a full-time counsellor and counselling manager (I have a masterā€™s degree in counselling psychology and doctoral studies in the same field). I am not a theorist. I deal with real people with real diseases. I am seeing the sad consequences of people who thought they could get away with the ā€˜safe sexā€™ message and are living with the highly infectious, appallingly painful blisters of genital herpes.

I will not go into what gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia (pelvic inflammatory disease), HIV, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can do. Dr. Patrick Dixon says: ā€˜Sleeping around has always been unhealthy, now it is becoming suicidalā€™ (Dixon 1987:29).

What would the ā€˜professionalsā€™ say about my warning? I’ll give just one example. Dr. Theresa Crenshaw, past president of the American Association of Sex Education, Counsellors and Therapists, and a member of the national AIDS Commission, had first-hand experience with the ā€˜professionalsā€™. She says this:

On June 19, 1987, I gave a lecture on AIDS to 800 sexologists at the World Congress of Sexologie in Heidelberg. Most of them recommended condoms to their clients and students. I asked them if they had available the partner of their dreams, and knew that person carried the virus, would they have sex, depending on a condom for protection? No one raised their hand. After a long delay, one timid hand surfaced from the back of the room. I told them that it was irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves. The point is, putting a mere balloon between the healthy body and the deadly disease is not safe (Crenshaw 1987, in Antonio n d, emphasis added).[2]

[Dixon, 1987, alerted me to many of the above statistics and information that he obtained from ā€˜Condom Rouletteā€™ (n.d.)]

ā€˜There is only one way to protect ourselves from the deadly [sexual] diseases that lie in wait. It is abstinence before marriage, then marriage and mutual fidelity for life to an uninfected partner. Anything less is potentially suicidalā€™ and definitely against God’s purpose for your sexual expressionā€™ (Focus on the Family 1992:7).Ā  See also,

(1) ā€˜Dobson Addresses Condom Effectiveness;

(2) Results from the year 2000 of ā€˜Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Preventionā€™.

Letā€™s come to the year 2013 and the information provided by Columbia Health of Columbia University, New York City, about the risks associated with condom use:

During a year of typical condom use, between 10 and 15 out of 100 sexually active women will become pregnant. During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to between 2 and 3 out of 100 sexually active women becoming pregnant. Just for the record, 21 percent (typical use) and 5 percent (perfect use) of women who use the female condom experience an unintended pregnancy within the first year of use.

Here’s the difference between perfect use and typical use. Perfect use means using a condom during intercourse consistently and correctly every single time, and reflects the effectiveness of condoms themselves. Typical use gets at the reality that people may use condoms incorrectly or may not use them every single time they have sex. That is, the ā€˜typical useā€™ condom effectiveness rates you see include the possibility of human error or omission. It follows that typical use condom effectiveness would be lower than perfect use – if someone uses a condom 90 percent of the times they have sexual intercourse there is a higher chance of pregnancy than if they use a condom 100 percent of the time.

As long as we’re on the subject of effectiveness, it s hould be noted that condoms are also highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV and a number of other STIs (sexually transmitted infections). Studies done on heterosexual sero-discordant couples ā€” where one partner is HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative ā€” show that HIV was transmitted in zero to two percent of couples who correctly and consistently used male condoms for both vaginal and anal sex. With typical use, the HIV transmission rate increased to between 10 and 15 percent. While condoms can also reduce the risk of other STIs, but their exact effectiveness is harder to determine (Columbia Health 2013).

Perhaps you’re saying, ā€˜That is not realistic today. It won’t work. Kids will not put it into practiceā€™.

Some will. Some won’t. But it is still the only answer, and I must warn you of the bad consequences of the ā€˜safe sexā€™ message. If I knew my teenager was going to have intercourse, I would not recommend the use of a condom because it gives five dangerous messages. They are:

1. You can achieve ā€˜safe sexā€™. From what I’ve said so far, it should be evident that that is not possible.

2. It tells you that everybody is doing it – that’s not so.

3. It says that responsible adults expect you to do it. I never want to give any teenager that information. If I promote the so-called ā€˜safe sexā€™ message, it is encouraging you to do what is dangerous and what God does not want you to do.

4. If I tell you to use a condom, it gives you the message that it’s a good thing. I hope I’ve shown you that it is not, and terribly dangerous.

5. The fifth danger of recommending condoms is that it breeds promiscuity ā€“ sleeping around with anybody.

They are five destructive messages I NEVER want to convey to any young people. ā€˜Safe sexā€™ sounds so good, but it is pregnant with a dangerous message.

 

C.Ā Ā Ā Ā  CRY FOUL: ā€˜THAT INFORMATION IS OUTDATEDā€™.

1. The story hasn’t changed

I can hear the objections: ā€˜That’s outdated information.Ā  Get with it!Ā  Be current!ā€™Ā  Before you get over enthused, we need to ask and answer this question: Has the story changed in recent years or is the message as destructive as it was back in the 1980s-90s? Westside Pregnancy Clinic, Los Angeles (2009) provided these details:

6pointGold-smallThe male condom as a birth control method, ā€˜If used consistently and correctly every single time, the male condom is 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. However, during typical use, condoms are around 85% effective at preventing pregnancyā€™. ā€˜The female condom is 79-95% effective at preventing pregnancyā€™.

Although some of the following statistics are somewhat dated, they do provide a pattern of condom failure rates and other issues (where possible, updated statistics were added):

6pointGold-small For persons under the age of 18 who have used condoms for at least a year, condoms were found to fail 18.4 percent of the time. [MD Hayward and J Yogi, ā€˜Contraceptive Failure Rate in the US: Estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growthā€™, Family Perspectives, Vol 18, No. 5, Sept/Oct 1986:204.]

6pointGold-small Among sexually active teenage girls aged 12 to 18, 30% contracted an STI over a six month period, including condom users. [LM Dinerman et al, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Med, 149(9):967-72, Sept. 1995.]

6pointGold-small For unmarried minorities, the condom failure rate is 36.3 percent, and for unmarried Hispanics, the failure rate is as high as 44.5 percent. [Jones and Forrest, 1989:105.]

6pointGold-small Among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17 percent of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. [Contraceptive Technology, Hatcher et al 1990:173.] That is a rate greater than one in six. Statistically speaking, the uninfected partners would have been better off playing Russian Roulette. More recent research in Australia has indicated that

the most frequently reported routes of HIV exposure were male to male sex (71%) and heterosexual contact (18%), and the population rate of diagnoses have increased in both categories. Among the cases reported as heterosexually acquired (n = 2199), 33% were in people born in a high-prevalence country and 19% in those with partners from a high-prevalence country. Late presentation was most frequent in heterosexually acquired infections in persons who had a partner from a high-prevalence country: 32% compared with 20% overall (Guy et al 2008:91).

6pointGold-smallOnly 7 percent of HIV positive persons voluntarily notify their sexual partners. [New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 9, 1992.] More recent UK research in 2008 is more encouraging:

London-based Mortimer Market Centreā€™s audit showed HIV partner notification was not documented for 15% of newly diagnosed patients.[3] In another, separate study a case note review of 145 HIV positive pregnant women revealed 18% had no record of partner notification discussion with a healthcare worker.[4]

clip_image012

Courtesy HealthCentral

HealthCentral reported in 2013 that:

If a condom is used regularly and correctly, it should prevent pregnancy 97% of the time, and prevent the spread of most STIs. The actual effectiveness among users, however, is only 80 – 90%. This is due to:

3d-red-star-small Break in condom due to manufacturing problems (rare)

3d-red-star-small Failure to use a condom during each act of intercourse

3d-red-star-small Occasional tear of a condom during intercourse

3d-red-star-small Semen spilling from a condom during withdrawal

3d-red-star-small Waiting too long to put a condom on the penis (penis comes into contact with vagina before condom is on) (HealthCentral 2013).

For an update on research, see: Renewing HIV Prevention: Solutions for Todayā€™s Challenges, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). This is from the Jon Cohen AIDS Research Collection.

2. Update on Condoms & Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)

clip_image013Clamydia

Ā  a.Ā Ā Ā  Are condoms a safe protection against STIs?

ā€˜Latex or polyurethane (plastic) condoms are useful in helping to prevent certain diseases, such as HIV and gonorrhea. However, they are less effective protecting against herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. Condoms provide almost no protection against HPV, the cause of genital warts and cervical cancerā€™ (Contracept.org 2013).

b. In particular, are condoms a safe way to prevent contracting HIV & AIDS?

clip_image014 HIV

ā€˜Condoms will reduce your chance of infection, compared to having sex without any form of protection. Nonetheless, one in three AIDS victims will contract the disease from an infected partner despite 100% use of condoms. One study found that among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17% of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. The best way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. [More about HIV/AIDS.]ā€™ (Contracept.org 2013).

The European Commission has a different view:

Brussels 20 November 2003

Questions have arisen recently over whether the HIV virus can or cannot pass through pores in latex condoms. EU research projects provide extensive proof that this is not the case: if properly used, condoms are safe. Over the last 15 years, the Commission has supported about a dozen research initiatives in this field across Europe, as well as in Asia and Africa, the areas most affected by the AIDS pandemic. EU projects focused on condoms’ potential porosity and quality standards, and included surveys of infection transmission in couples and prostitutes. Scientific evidence shows that condoms are the only effective protection against HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS kills over 3 million people every year, and the fight against this virus relies mostly on protective measures, including condomsā€¦.

ll the studies concluded that the male condom was an effective way of preventing the transmission of HIV, with an efficacy close to 100% when the condom is used appropriately (European Commission Research, ā€˜HIV/AIDS: European Research provides clear proof that HIV virus cannot pass through condomsā€™, 2003).

c. Testing condoms in Europe

clip_image016

Red condom

ā€˜In Europe, about 2.5 million condoms are bought daily. Until recently, no standard European test for holes existed. Manufacturers and testing laboratories in different countries used different tests, leading to questionable safety of condoms being traded across borders. National testing laboratories from seven European countries, an AIDS charity and a condom manufacturer decided to see which of five tests is best. After extensive testing of nearly 200,000 condoms, they found two accurate and reliable tests which are now included in the European standard for testing condoms for holesā€™ (ā€˜Comparing condom testsā€™, 2002).

In a test of condoms over a 30-month project, the partners went through about 180,000 condoms. The results concluded that ā€˜the two test methods in the European standard are in fact the best ones to useā€™. These are:

(1) ā€˜Here, a condom is filled with water and rolled on absorbent paper. If the tester finds any wet patches on the paper, the condom is faulty. This test has been used in the UK and in Scandinaviaā€™.

(2) It is ā€˜used in France and Germany, is known as the European electric test. This involves filling the condom with a salt solution that can carry an electric current. The tester dips the filled condom into a bath of salt solution and measures the electrical resistance. If the condom has a hole, the resistance is low as the current is not halted by the insulating condom material. A perfect ā€˜hole-freeā€™ condom, on the other hand, will show a high resistance as the current cannot be carried through the condomā€™.

What were the conclusions?

ā€˜The extensive testing and results confirmed that the two test methods in the European standard are in fact the best ones to use. They are the most effective and reliableā€¦.

This thorough study of the standard tests gives condom manufacturers and testing laboratories more confidence. They know that the tests actually give reliable results. Likewise, the public can be certain that the condoms they are buying are safe to use. Good health is obviously the first priority but the result also has important economic consequences for the industry with the European market of about 900 million condoms being worth 467 million ECU in 1994ā€™ (ā€˜Comparing condom testsā€™, 2002).[5]

d.Ā  A challenge to the ā€˜holes in condomsā€™ data

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 1992 that:

ā€˜While holes large enough for HIV to pass through have been found in natural membrane condoms, latex condoms do not allow the HIV to pass through the condom unless the condom has been damaged or torn. Used properly, latex condoms are effective in reducing the risk of HIV infectionā€™ (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992). [as of 6 May 2007, see http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms1.html]

See this 1994 article, ā€˜Can HIV pass through the pores in latex condoms?ā€™ This article by Cecil Adams[6] states:

In short, regardless of who’s right about latex, you’d be foolish to make condoms your only defense against infection. Abstinence or, more realistically, avoidance of high-risk sex partners are far more effective strategies. (If you’re a gay male and thus in a high-risk group to start with, at least stay away from IV drug users.) On the other hand, condoms do offer substantial protection, and if you insist on having sex with a high-risk partner, they’re a lot better than no protection at all.

 

II. REASONS FOR SAYING ā€˜NOā€™ TO PREMARITAL SEX

clip_image018ā€™True Love Waitsā€™

Our society does not want to give you the message: Say, ā€˜Noā€™, to premarital sex. Of course, that would be imposing their views on you if they promoted abstinence–and that would be moralistic–that’s what they would say. However, what do you think the ā€˜safe sexā€™ message is? Just that! Imposing the view that sex with anybody is okay, as long as the male wears a condom.

I am indebted to Josh McDowell & Dick Day for helping me to understand the many good reasons why you should say ā€˜Noā€™ to premarital sex.Their two books are outstanding: Why Wait? (McDowell & Day, 1987) and How to Help Your Child Say ā€˜NOā€™ to Sexual Pressure (McDowell, 1987).

Before I share with you these reasons to abstain from sex until marriage, I must begin by focussing on God’s reasons for the instructions about sex:

A. God’s reasons for the instructions about sex.

We must begin by understanding the character of God.

  • He is not a killjoy wanting to ruin your fun,
  • He didn’t make us to enjoy sex and then frustrate us,
  • God made and designed us,
  • He knows everything–he is all-knowing,
  • He loves us so much he sent his Son to die for us. He always has our best interests in mind.
  • Only god knows what is best for us,
  • Everything he requires of us is meant only for our best good.

Deuteronomy 10:13, ā€˜Observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own goodā€™.

Those last four words are critical: for your own good. All of God’s commands to us, all of his requirements for us are not to break us and kill our joy, but they are for our own good. How come? Because he created us, knows what is best for us, and gives us instructions that are for lasting joy and satisfaction.

Psalm 84:11, ā€˜For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blamelessā€™.

James 1:17, ā€˜Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadowsā€™.

God knows and wants the best for us. He knows how your total being works–body, mind and spirit. God knows how human relationships function most fully and joyfully. So when he says that sex belongs in marriage, he is not restricting your fun. He’s showing us the way to enjoy it best. God is not trying to stop us from having a wonderful sex life. He is giving us the positive instruction to have the most wonderful sex life possible.

I have found many Christians ignorant of this perspective. I was ignorant of it for many years and it destroyed my approach to sex in my teens.

If you look on God’s commands–you shall not commit adultery; you will flee sexual immorality, etc. If you view these commands as negative and designed to frustrate your enjoyment, you will miss what God wants for your sexual enjoyment. Remember, these negatives are given for positive reasons.

When my children were young, I warned them: do not touch a hot stove. That was very negative and it looked like I might have been stopping them from having fun. But it is really a positive command. If my Paul had burned himself, it would prevent him from enjoying life for a while.

That’s how it is with God: Whenever he gives a command, there are at least two positive reasons behind it:

(1). He’s trying to protect us from some harm, and

(2). He’s trying to provide something good for us.

Suppose that a hurdler trained hard and sacrificially for four years to prepare for the Olympics. But when he showed up for the race in Barcelona, he found that there were no lanes marked to keep the runners from crashing into each other. What if the hurdles were scattered all over the track and there was no finish line to show the end of the race?

The race would be a dangerous chaos, with runners bumping into each other, cutting one another with their spikes, tripping over each other and the hurdles, and running around in confusion as they figured out how and where the race was to end.

That Olympic race needs to be set up and managed by somebody who knows what he is doing. In the same way, we need someone–the Lord–who knows what he is doing and how this life is to be lived. We need someone to set the boundaries for us. Fortunately, God has done this even before we asked–the instructions are in his Word–the Bible.

Now to some more reasons why you should wait until marriage for the sexual relationship. These are solid reasons why you should say ā€˜Noā€™ to premarital sex. There are four major areas: physical, spiritual, emotional and relational.

B. Physical reasons

God wants:

1. To protect us from addiction to premarital sex.

Sex is an extremely pleasurable activity–God made it that way. But you can get hooked on it. Illicit sex can become a real addiction causing all kinds of grief and our loving Lord wants to protect us from that.

2. God wants to protect you from the way premarital sex can damage the view you have of yourself.

Premarital sex puts you on a performance basis. That brings insecurity into any relationship. You will become anxious about how you are performing. You know that as soon as your ability to pleasure the other person diminishes, your relationship is in deep trouble.

Debora Phillips, author of Sexual Confidence and the director of the Princeton Center for Behaviour Therapy wrote:

Due to the instant sex of the sexual revolution, people perform rather than make love . Many women can’t achieve a sense of intimacy, and their anxiety about how well they perform blocks their chances for honest arousal.

Without genuine involvement, they haven’t much chance of courtship, romance or love. They’re left feeling cheated and burned out (in McDowell, 1987:129).

There’s another physical reason to wait until marriage. We’ve spent a good amount of time on it:

3. God wants to protect you from the threat of sexually transmitted diseases.

In one sexual encounter it is possible to pick up as many as five separate diseases.

If you have sex outside marriage you are at risk. As one researcher put it: ā€˜Unless you’re monogamous (married to one person) for a lifetime, with a monogamous partner, you’re at risk. And the more partners you have, the greater the riskā€™ (McDowell 1987:129).

A fourth physical reason to wait:

4. God wants to protect you from unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

To protect you from the physical reasons it involves, God says: don’t engage in premarital sex. On the positive side, God wants to provide you with the full beauty of sexual oneness in marriage. You will experience the beauty of sex most fully in the security, love and commitment of marriage.

The Lord want you to enter marriage free from the scars of your past life. God knows that the only way for you to experience maximum sex is in marriage. There are many good reasons to wait.

Let’s look at:

C. The spiritual reasons to say ā€˜NOā€™ to premarital sex.

1.Ā Ā Ā  First, to protect you from sinning against your own body and losing respect for yourself and your body.

I Corinthians 6:18, ā€˜Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own bodyā€™.

When you engage in premarital sex, there is often a deep loss of respect for your own body and for the body of your partner.

2. God wants to protect you from his righteous judgment.

Hebrews 13:4, ā€˜Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoralā€™.

In I Thess. 4:3-8, God says he will judge sexual immorality. God is holy and will judge those who break his commands.

King David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11-12) is a perfect example of this. Out of adultery a child was born, and in judgment God took the son’s life. It was a painful judgment for David.

Remember this: the Lord doesn’t always judge immediately, but it is always sure. Stay pure for God. God doesn’t want you to suffer at the hands of his justice.

There’s a third spiritual reason:

3.Ā Ā Ā Ā  God want s to protect you from anything that will tend to break fellowship with him.

There is guilt associated with premarital sex. God is uncomfortable to be around, so you withdraw from your relationship with God.

4.Ā Ā Ā Ā  A final spiritual reason to wait: God wants to protect you from being a poor witness to non-Christians because of your sinful sexual activity.

Christian values are different from the world’s. There should be a noticeable difference in our lifestyles. If the Christian young person is sexually active, how will that attract the unsaved to Christ? What will make them see that their lives need to be changed, if you are into illicit sex?

If you abstain from sex now, it is because God wants you to experience greater intimacy later–in marriage. But God is also calling you before marriage to greater intimacy with Himself.

There are emotional reasons why you should say ā€˜Noā€™ to premarital sex:

D. Emotional reasons to wait

Premarital sex can cause you great emotional stress. God wants to protect you from this. Perhaps the greatest problem is:

1. Guilt

This comes from knowing you have violated God’s standards. As one young person put it: ā€˜One of the worst feelings many sexually active people experience is to get up the next morning and realise the person lying next to you is a total stranger. This robs you of the ability to experience the honesty of an intimate relationship. Then there are the flashbacks from past sexual encountersā€™.

Guilt is real. God doesn’t want your minds and consciences plagued by that kind of guilt.

Another emotional reason to wait is:

2. God wants to protect you from misleading feelings.

Young people who get involved sexually often confuse sex and love. When you confuse sex and love, you will confuse the concepts of giving and taking. Real love always gives and seeks the best interests of the person you love. But in premarital sex, each person is taking for his/her own selfish reasons. The confusion is this: taking can sometimes look like giving.

The third emotional reason:

3. God wants to protect you from the way premarital sex can create in you negative feelings about sex.

  • emotions of guilt,
  • resentment over being used,
  • fear of getting caught,
  • an unwanted pregnancy,
  • catching a sexually transmitted disease.

As one young woman put it, ā€˜I feel physically used and therefore undesirable. My past mistakes are evident on my body. Who would ever want to marry me? Can I ever freely give my body to a man? Would another man even want my body? Can I have children? Do I have some undetected STD? The past never goes awayā€™ (McDowell 1987:134)

Immoral sex can make the sexual experience seem dirty and tainted to a young person, causing not only hurt feelings now, but tremendous difficulty later in the sexual part of marriage.

4. God wants to protect you from the difficulty of breaking off a bad relationship when sex is involved.

Sex either does one of two things to a dating relationship. It either ends a good relationship, or it sustains a bad relationship. The bonding that takes place through sexual intercourse, or even heavy petting, causes a person to look unrealistically on the relationship.

It may cause you to . . .

  • see the relationship deeper than it really is,
  • think you know the other person better than you do.

On the positive side, if you wait for marriage, it . . .

  • allows maturity to develop,
  • allows self-control, character and the ability to focus on the relationship to grow.
  • waiting also shows love for your future mate.
  • When you say ā€˜NOā€™ you are saying: ā€˜I value the feelings and respect of my future mate more than the pleasure of the momentā€™.

E. Relational reasons to wait

1. God wants to protect you from a breakdown in communication.

Spending time in sex takes away from the time that could be spent in getting to know each other more.

2. Sex makes a good courtship difficult because, in addition to reducing communication, it usually comes to dominate a premarital relationship.

So, in the time when the man and woman should be getting to know each other well and developing the social, intellectual and emotional aspects of the relationship, that process is cut short by the lack of communication and focus on the physical.

3. God wants to protect you from the comparison of past sexual partners.

This always plagues those who engage in premarital sex. In my 34 years of counselling youth, relationships, marriages and families, I have never met a person who has been able to forget former lovers entirely. This plagues them in marriage. Even in the marriage bed, they may be comparing the spouse with a previous partner. This is wrong in and of itself, but it also is cheating your spouse.

The other side of the coin is that if a person knows his or her spouse was sexually active before marriage, he or she also knows comparisons are also going on in the spouse’s mind.

This is unhealthy for marriage. God wants to protect you from it.

Take a read about how the ā€˜AIDS/HIV rate was slashed in Uganda after 10 years of True Love Waitsā€™. Further:

July 29 1994 – True Love Waits National Display at DC ’94, Washington, D.C., with 210,000 cards displayed on the National Mall between the Capitol and the Washington Monument; 25,000 youth attend rally.

On the same day, students conduct a parade and rally in Kampala, Uganda, launching True Love Waits efforts in HIV/AIDS plagued Africa; IMB missionary Sharon Pumpelly initiates a close partnership with Uganda’s first lady Janet Museveni that sets in motion the most effective True Love Waits efforts resulting in a reduction of the HIV/AIDS infection rate from 30 percent in 1993 to 6 percent in 2006 (A History of True Love Waits, LifeWay Christian Resources 2013).

 

III. CONCLUSION

There are many valid reasons for you to say ā€˜NOā€™ to premarital sex. God really is acting in love when He commands that sex be enjoyed with in the bonds of marriage.

This is a message of prevention for those who are virgins. God loves you and wants to protect you from entering into the damaging consequences of illicit sex.

On the other hand, I know there may be some reading this for whom this message is too late ā€“ you have lost your virginity, you are loaded down with guilt, you know what I have been saying is true. What can you do?

This is exactly what I had to do. Run to the cross. You cannot undo what you have done, but you can be forgiven. God will lay down all charges against you if you repent and ask his forgiveness. The biblical message for all Christians who sin is I John 1:9, ā€˜If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousnessā€™.

You can be forgiven today. If the Lord has convicted you about sexual sin in your life, respond to him today. But let me remind you of the Scriptures, ā€˜You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his own heartā€™ (Matthew 5:27-28).

Ladies, if you have lusted after a man or had impure sexual thoughts about him, you have sinned against God and need to seek God’s forgiveness and cleansing.

Gentlemen, if you have lusted after a woman, you have committed adultery or sexual immorality in your heart and need to seek God’s forgiveness.

Do it today. Come and seek God, ask for his forgiveness, and he is sure to cleanse every sin (1 John 1:9).

It is wise to have somebody to whom you will be accountable so that he (for males) or she (for females) can ask you at any time for absolutely honest answers to these questions: ā€˜Have you been tempted to engage in sex outside of marriage this last week/month?ā€™ and ā€˜Have you committed acts of sexual immorality this last week/month for which you need to seek God’s forgiveness?ā€™

Works consulted

Alexander, R 2013. High school sex ed indoctrination reaching dangerous levels (online). Townhall.com, 9 December. Available at: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/12/09/high-school-sex-ed-indoctrination-reaching-dangerous-levels-n1759689/page/full (Accessed 15 December 2013).

Antonio, G n d. Article from AIDS Rage & Reality (online).[7] Available at: http://crl.i8.com/Eternity/Aidsinfo.html (Accessed 14 December 2013).

Antonio, G 1993. AIDS: Rage & reality: Why silence is deadly. Dallas: Anchor Books.

Arnold, S G; Whitman Jr., J E; Fox, C H & Cottier-Fox, M H 1988. Latex gloves not enough to exclude viruses, Nature 335, September 1.

Comparing condom tests (online) 2002. European Commission, Research ā€“ Europa. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/success/en/med/0309e.html (Accessed 14 December 2013).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1992. HIV/AIDS Prevention Training Bulletin (online), July 1. Available at: http://www.safersex.org/condoms/work/ss6.4.html (Accessed 3 June 2002).

Columbia Health 2013. Go Ask Alice: An explanation of condom failure rates (online). Columbia University in the City of New York, 11 April. Available at: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/explanation-condom-failure-rates (Accessed 15 December 2013).

Condom roulette n d. In Focus, Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC, 20005.

Crenshaw, T 1987. From remarks made at the National Conference on HIV, Washington DC, November 15-18, 1987 (available in Antonio n d).

Dew, D 1995. Condom ‘safe sex’ theory full of holes. Available at: http://dianedew.com/condom.htm (Accessed 26 May 2002) ā€“ based on an article written for The Covington News, March 16, 1995.

Dirruba, N E 1987, The condom barrier, American Journal of Nursing, October, 1306-1309.

Dixon, P 1987. The truth about AIDS. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications.

Dobson, J 1992. Focus on the Family newsletter, February 13.

Focus on the Family 1992. In defense of a little virginity: A message from Focus on the Family (online). Spring Hope Enterprises, July 30, 7. Available at: http://she.stparchive.com/Archive/SHE/SHE07301992P07.php (Accessed 14 December 2013).

Green, E C 2003. Rethinking AIDS prevention: Learning from successes in developing countries. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Part of the publication is available free online as a Google Book HERE.

Gruson, L 1987. Condoms: Experts fear false sense of security. The New York Times, 18 August, Section C, p. 1. [This was cited in Green (2003:327).]

Guy, R J; McDonald A M; Bartlett, M J; Murray, J C; Giele, C M; Davey, T M; Appuhamy, R D; Knibbs, P; Coleman, D; Hellard, M E, Grulich, A E & Kaldor, J M 2008. Characteristics of HIV diagnoses in Australia, 1993ā€“2006. Sexual Health (online) 5(2) 91ā€“96, 2 June. Abstract CSIRO Publishing. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH07070 (Accessed 19 December 23013).

HealthCentral 2013. Condoms (online). Remedy health media. Available at: http://www.healthcentral.com/genital-herpes/prevention-8800-108_1.html (Accessed 14 December 2013).

HIV partner notification: a missed opportunity? 2012. NAT: Transforming the UKā€™s response to HIV, 1-32. Available at: http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/May-2012-HIV-Partner-Notification.pdf (Accessed 17 December 2013).

Human Life International 2013. Condoms: Little-known scientific facts (online). Available at: http://www.hli.org/resources/condoms-little-known-scientific-facts/ (Accessed 15 December 2013).

Jones, E F and Forrest, J D 1989. Contraceptive failure in the United States: Revised estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth, Planned Parenthood, USA: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 3, May/June.

McDowell, J 1987. How to help your child say ā€˜NOā€™ to sexual pressure. Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing.

McDowell, J & Day, D 1987. Why wait? What you need to know about the teen sexuality crisis. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers.

Westside Pregnancy Clinic 2009. Contraception (online). 11500 W Olympic Blvd #570 Los Angeles, CA 90064. Available at: http://www.wpclinic.org/sexual-health/contraception/ (Accessed 17 December 2013).

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at 19 December 2013.

Notes:


[1] This was cited in Gruson (1987:1).

[2] Some of these details are in Antonio (1993:271).

[3] Mortimer Market Centre 2010. How to improve partner notification in HIV prevention (unpublished) [HIV partner notification 2012:28, n. 43].

[4] Forbes K, Lomax N, Cunningham R et al (2008): ā€˜Partner notification in pregnant women with HIV: findings from three inner city clinicsā€™, HIV Medicine , vol. 9 (HIV partner notification 2012:28, n. 44).

[5] This page is no longer being updated.

[6] At the time of writing this article, Cecil Adams was a syndicated columnist for 30 newspapers across Canada and the USA, writing the weekly column, ā€˜The Straight Dopeā€™. Available at: http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil (Accessed 17 December 2013). For a list of newspapers carrying ā€˜The Straight Dopeā€™, see: http://www.straightdope.com/pages/newspapers (Accessed 17 December 2013).

[7] AIDS Rage & Reality gives a reference to Angonio (1993).

 

Copyright (c)Ā  2013 Spencer D. Gear.Ā  This document last updated at Date: 14 October 2015.

Queen Elizabeth II and Jesus silent on homosexuality

Elderly Elizabeth with a smile

Queen Elizabeth II (2007) [Courtesy Wikipedia]

By Spencer D Gear

It is time to bash Queen Elizabeth II in print because she did not mention homosexuals in her signing the new Commonwealth charter, which states: “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”[1]

Journalist Patrick Strudwick made these points:

  1. ā€˜We extremists, who believe gay people should not be tortured or persecuted, shall be granted a new comrade: the supreme governor of the Church of England, the head of the Commonwealth, the Queen of more than a dozen countries. And then I read the detailā€™.
  2. ā€˜Fighting for gay rights? The Queen won’t even mention them. She dare not speak our name ā€“ that is, if you believe she is even referring to gay peopleā€™.
  3. ā€˜Jesus never mentioned homosexuality ā€“ has that dissuaded many of his followers that “love thy neighbour” does not in fact mean: “as long as his partner’s not called Steve”ā€™?
  4. ā€˜No, to refrain from specification is to collude with silence, the Grand Pause that keeps lesbians and gay men invisible, suffocating in marriages of inconvenience or trapped in police cells. The hush of polite conversation is the rusty mattock of a millennium’s oppressionā€™.
  5. ā€˜Of course. Stating that all humans deserve rights is “political”. How controversial it is that people should not be discriminated against. But how laughable would it be for an unelected head of state to preach equality anyway?ā€™
  6. ā€˜If only the alleged intention were expressed explicitly, unequivocally. Most Commonwealth nations, injected by our colonial laws and Old Testament homophobia in the first place, need it. Desperatelyā€™.
  7. ā€˜Two Commonwealth countries sentence gay people to death, one tortures them with flogging, five impose life sentences and 41 of the 54 nations keep homosexuality illegalā€™.
  8. ā€˜This is why our opposition to discrimination needs spelling outā€™.

Letā€™s tackle these allegations and statements directly, according to numbers 1-8 above.

1. Gay people should not be tortured or persecuted

It is a fundamental of Christian beliefs that no people should be tortured or persecuted. All should receive this kind of love, whether gay or non-gay, no matter what the race or nation: ā€˜Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.ā€™ The second is this: ā€˜Love your neighbor as yourself.ā€™ There is no commandment greater than theseā€ā€™ (Mark 12:30-31 NIV).

Christians are fallible human beings who have the Saviour living in them, but they sin and do not always follow Godā€™s commands as He intended. For that they need to seek Godā€™s and the peopleā€™s forgiveness and repent of their evil ways.

I can hear a secularistā€™s objection: ā€˜Your God tortured and persecuted people in the Old Testamentā€™. No, God carried out his just judgment on the people of Israel and the nations when they violated Godā€™s laws. This is not indiscriminate torture and persecution. There is a fundamental difference between persecution and judgment. Here are a couple of examples:

a. Godā€™s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah

You can read about it in Genesis 18 and 19. Genesis 18:20 states, ā€˜Then the Lord said, ā€œBecause the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very graveā€ā€™.

Abraham interceded for Sodom but there were not 10 righteous people he could find there (Gen. 18:32). Lot and his family escaped Sodom, but the Lord rained down judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin (Gen 18:23-29).

God brings judgment, but it is not torture and persecution from an indiscriminate, brutal, uncaring, unfair God. He is the God of absolute justice. This is a lesson for all nations of the world in the twenty-first century. God will not tolerate sinning against his holy nature. Nations and people will be punished with Godā€™s judgment.

b. King Jeroboam of Israel built golden calves

See 1 Kings 12 and 13. Jeroboam set up gods ā€“ golden calves ā€“ one in Bethel and the other in Dan (1 Kings 12:29). Jeroboam built an altar in these places and offered sacrifices to these gods. But a man of God ā€˜cried against the altar by the word of the Lordā€™ (1 Kings 13:2) and Jeroboamā€™s hand dried up (1 Kings 13:4). This was enough judgment on Jeroboam to cause him to ask the man of God, ā€˜ā€Entreat now the favour of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to meā€. And the man of God entreated the Lord and the kingā€™s hand was restored to him and became as it was beforeā€™ (1 Kings 13:6-7).

But God is a just judge. The Scriptures declare in Genesis 18:25, ā€˜Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?ā€ā€™ (ESV)

Here the one God of the world, revealed in Old and New Testaments, is declared to be the God of justice. Not one single person or nation, will receive an unjust treatment from the Lord God Almighty.

Therefore, it is not an extremist position to say gay people should not be tortured or persecuted. It is a Christian position that all people should be treated fairly and ones enemies should be loved:

ā€œYou have heard that it was said, ā€˜Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.ā€™ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV).

2. Itā€™s discriminatory to accuse the Queen of not fighting for gay rights

Isnā€™t it amazing how skewed the perspective can become of those who fight for equal rights (gay rights)? Surely one of the fundamentals of human rights is freedom of choice?

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Spanish version)

Courtesy Wikipedia

In the Preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

 

Article 18 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes this statement: ā€˜Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religionā€¦.ā€™.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes this statement: ā€˜Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interferenceā€™.

The Queen, as representative of the Commonwealth countries, has signed a document that the Commonwealth countries have approved. Surely she has the right to freedom of thought, religion, opinion and expression, based on Articles 18 and 19 (above)! But she is castigated by Strudwick for her silence on gay rights issues.

The article by Patrick Strudwick stated:

according to a Palace spokesman, the charter’s words are not even the monarch’s: “In this charter, the Queen is endorsing a decision taken by the Commonwealthā€¦ The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical”.[2]

Why canā€™t the Queen be granted a basic human right of freedom of speech and belief or freedom not to speak or not believe as her choice? This sounds like an awfully hypocritical stance by Strudwick, the homosexual and human rightsā€™ advocate, who does not like the Queenā€™s personal silence on this issue.

Isnā€™t it amazing how the arguments of some advocates can be so self-defeating?

3. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. So what?

Patrick Strudwick shows his ignorance of what Jesus said. Jesus understanding of marriage was:

ā€œHavenā€™t you read the Scriptures?ā€ Jesus replied. ā€œThey record that from the beginning ā€˜God made them male and female.ā€™ā€ And he said, ā€œā€˜This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.ā€™ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus did not need to mention homosexuality to affirm marriage was between a man and a woman. It is obvious Jesus supported heterosexual marriage.
However, Patrick’s point is valid that the call of Jesus’ followers to “love thy neighbour” does include all, including those males whose partner is called Steve. Too often Christians have excluded the biblical love of one’s neighbour, no matter who that neighbour is. I urge such Christians to repent.

There is an additional point. The Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God. Therefore, the New Testament does give Godā€™s judgment on all sinners, including those who practice homosexuality:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[3] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[4] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV).

Here is a statement of condemnation for all sinners ā€“ the unrighteous ā€“ they will not inherit Godā€™s kingdom. But the good news is, ā€˜Such were some of youā€™. Yes, the heterosexually immoral, idolaters, thieves, greedy, drunkards, swindlers, etc., can be changed by the power of God through salvation in Jesus Christ. Thus, those who practice homosexuality are not practicing a genetic condition, but a sinful condition, that God says can be changed: ā€˜Such were some of youā€™.

4. To be silent is to ā€˜colludeā€™

That is one possible meaning. Another possible meaning is that as head of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth countries have agreed to this charter but the Queen may not be supportive of the Commonwealth position, but she still has to sign it. I canā€™t read the Queenā€™s mind for not speaking up for ā€˜gay rightsā€™, but a basic of any democracy is that the Queen has every right to say or not say what she wants regarding gay rights.

Silence does not necessarily mean collusion. It could mean an expression of her own views that she does not want to make public.

5. So itā€™s ā€˜laughableā€™ for the Queen to preach equality

As an unelected head or state who wants to be apolitical, why should it be ā€˜laughableā€™ for her to be silent on gay rights? So, according to Strudwick, it is controversial that people should not be discriminated against. But what does he do? He discriminates against the Queen for being silent on this occasion. That is a hypocritical and self-defeating response.

6. Explicit, unequivocal statements would oppose the Old Testament homophobia

Ah, so that is one of the issues! To speak out explicitly and unequivocally in favour of gay rights would counter the colonial laws and Old Testament homophobia ā€“ which is desperately needed. Again, this is Strudwickā€™s discrimination against Old Testament (and colonial) laws against homosexuality.

The Old Testament states:

Leviticus 18:22, ā€˜You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abominationā€™.

Leviticus 20:13, ā€˜If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themā€™.

Homosexuality in the Old Testament was regarded as such a serious sin that it deserved capital punishment. But never let us forget that other sins also required capital punishment. See Leviticus 20:1-5; Leviticus 20:9-21;

The Christian does not live under Old Testament law, thanks to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. See Matthew 11:13; Romans 5:13-14; 6:14; 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:11-13; Galatians 3:19; and James 2:10.

However, the unforgiven sins of the unrighteous, including unforgiven homosexuality, has the ultimate consequence of denying eternal life to the perpetrators. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

See Matt Slickā€™s article, ā€˜Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and a “man who lies with a man”ā€™.

7. Is it correct to execute homosexuals or make homosexuality illegal?

There are many sins mentioned in, say, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, that are criminal offences. These include theft, being drunk, revilers (slanderers), and swindlers. However, Strudwick has a point here. To execute homosexuals is an Old Testament punishment that has been abolished since Christā€™s atoning sacrifice on the cross. To torture, flog and impose life imprisonment on homosexuals is parallel to Old Testament law that has been superceded. To make homosexuality illegal has benefits when we understand some of the consequences of a homosexual lifestyle:

The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (USA) reported (May 2012) on HIV among homosexual and bisexual men:

  • Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
  • From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.

What about the prevalence of anal cancer among homosexual men? According to WebMD, ā€˜Gay and bisexual men are at significant risk for developing anal cancer, and testing them for the disease would save many lives, says a new study in the American Journal of Medicine [the year 2000]ā€¦. The number of cases of anal cancer is rising in gay menā€™. Physicians for Life reported that ā€˜a study which appears in the February [2007] issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS, has found that “HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer”ā€™.

8. Opposition to discrimination needs spelling out

This is an excellent point, but this article by Strudwick was also discriminatory towards Queen Elizabeth II. She has a right to silence because of her position, values, or any other reason that she accepts as a free person in a free society. To oppose the Queenā€™s silence and call it discrimination is self-defeating when Strudwick engages in discrimination towards the Queen because she does not line up with his gay rights beliefs.

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt ShakersĀ (Christian ministry)

Notes:


[1] Patrick Strudwick, ā€˜The Queen defending gay rights? She canā€™t even say the words out loudā€™, The Guardian, 11 March 2013, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/queen-gay-rights-commonwealth (Accessed 13 March 2013).

[2] Ibid.

[3] The ESV footnote at this point was, ā€˜Or wrongdoersā€™.

[4] The ESV footnote here as, ā€˜The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual actsā€™.

 

Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

Tolerance, homosexuality and not inheriting the Kingdom of God

God love you

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is standard fare to hear of theological liberals who accept and even promote the homosexual lifestyle. But getting acceptance from a supposed Bible-believing pastor is quite another thing. Former homosexual, Joe Dallas, wrote in 1995 in ā€œAnswering Pro-Gay Theologyā€, “The debate over homosexuality and the Bible – specifically, whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual acts in all cases – will do no less than rip the body of Christ apart in the next decade. It will force believers to declare, in black and white terms, where they stand on issues of sexuality and Biblical interpretation” (p. 172).[1] Joe hit the mark ā€“ big time!

A theologically liberal Anglican clergyman

 

We saw this in Brisbane with a liberal Anglican clergyman, Peter Catt, supporting the Queensland Bill for the legalising of homosexual civil unions. See the article, ā€œAnglican Churchā€™s Peter Catt backs gay civil unions at Queensland parliamentary hearingā€ (Courier-Mail, 11 November 2011). What were some of his arguments?

  • The same-sex unionsā€™ Bill does not denigrate the legitimacy of marriage;
  • It extended ā€œlibertiesā€ to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples;
  • ā€œI really donā€™t see that this impinges on marriage at allā€;
  • This will mean that children in same-sex unions are in a relationship with good values;
  • Bad marriages did more to undermine the institution of marriage.
  • He said, ā€œTo some extent ā€¦ [I’m] putting my neck on a chopping blockā€;

Rev. Dr. Peter Catt is the Anglican Dean of Brisbane. This link provides a reflection on what liberal Anglicanism means: ā€œWe strive for open-minded conversation, seek to practice inclusion, and reflect on how we might see our beliefs put into actionā€. Open-minded, inclusive practice means that homosexuals are included in the name of inclusion, tolerance and open-mindedness. Do you notice what he missed out in what was reported?

The Courier-Mail did not provide one statement from Rev. Dr. Catt on what the Bible says about homosexuality. There was not a word about the content of anything in I Corinthians 6:9-11,

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (ESV).

Liberal, inclusive, open-mindedness means that the full story of Godā€™s view of homosexuality (and all other sin) as portrayed in the Bible is censored. Also, theological liberalism has a low view of the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, so itā€™s not surprising that that this liberal view downplays the importance of a biblical view of sexuality, including homosexuality. Now, I expect that from a liberal Anglican, but I did not expect something similar from a charismatic preacher.

What about the ā€˜toleranceā€™ view from a leading charismatic minister?

Rob Buckingham is the senior pastor at the large charismatic Bayside Church, Cheltenham, Victoria.Ā  The Sunday Herald Sun, 17 November 2011, reported on his approach to homosexuals in, ā€œPreaching tolerance baysideā€. You can hear this message by Rob Buckingham at Youtube online, ‘Real Christianity is accepting‘. It was preached in 2009. What is your view on this approach?

What some other churches are concluding

a. Australia: There is an assumption among some that the Bible and religious tradition do not teach that homosexual relationships are contrary to Godā€™s plan. A brochure, representative of the Uniting Church in Australia, stated that ā€˜Homosexuality is a good part of Godā€™s diverse creationā€™.[2] Adelaideā€™s new Anglican Bishop, Dr Tim Harris, supports homosexual clergy but they must follow church guidelines and not engage in homosexual sex.[3]

b. The USA: The United Church of Christ’s General Synod (USA), in 2005, affirmed a resolution that there should be “equal marriage rights for all people regardless of gender”, but that denomination does not require pastors to perform homosexual marriage.[4] The United Church of Canada urged its federal government in Ottawa to recognise same-sex relationships.[5] The Presbyterian Church USA in 2011 ratified support for homosexual clergy, stating that

ā€œpersons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination,ā€ General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons told the Presbyterian News Service. ā€œThe gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgmentsā€.

c. Canada: The United Church of Canada has developed a resource that ā€œoffers four workshops to help a congregation or a group within the congregation to explore civil recognition of same-sex relationships from a faith and justice perspective. It also offers a process for congregational decision making on same-sex marriageā€.

d. Europe: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has affirmed that

Gay and lesbian Lutheran ministers in the conservative German state of Bavaria may live with their partners in parish parsonages, but only if they enter into a state-sanctioned civil union. Although the move may seem bold for what is generally considered one of Germany’s most traditional states, Bishop Johannes Friedrich of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria said it was no great departure from existing policies. He noted that the church had already welcomed openly gay ministers and same-sex unions. “We had only left out that a couple could live in a civil union in the parsonage,” he said. To abide by the ruling, gay or lesbian ministers must receive a church blessing for their union and enter into a civil union officially recognized by government officials.[6]

tolerance by bedpanner - John 14:2 In my fathers house are many rooms.

(image courtesy openclipart)

Of the Church of Scotland, the Herald Scotland reported:

THE Church of Scotland is being starved of donations due to the growing schism in the Kirk over moves to allow gay ministers. The Church has been riven with internal divisions since its decision to set up a special commission on same-sex relationship in the ministry in 2009. An internal report by Glasgow Presbytery described how in one church ā€“ St Georgeā€™s Tron in Glasgow ā€“ the ā€œgeneral disquiet and sadness about the Church of Scotlandā€™s decision to set up a special commission on this matter had been a contributory factor in several members directing their sacrificial giving and tithing towards the congregationā€™s evangelical ministry and outreach, rather than the central funds of the Church of Scotlandā€¦. ā€œSomeone,ā€ he says, ā€œsaid to me recently, ā€˜Iā€™m in the wrong church.ā€™ I know a lot of people are feeling like thatā€.[7]

e. Africa:

The largest Protestant church in Africa grabbed the worldā€™s attention when it publically denounced homosexuality and said people who support gay rights were not welcome in the churchā€”and neither was their money. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) posted a notice on its Web site entitled: Church rejects homosexuality. ā€œThose in same sex marriages, and those who support the legitimacy of such marriage, shall not be invited to work in the ELCT,ā€ a press release states. ā€œWe further reject their influence in any form, as well as their money and their support.ā€ In addition the fastest-growing church in Africa with 5.3 million members said it ā€œsupports all those around the world who oppose churches that have taken the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.ā€ This loud warning was seen as a prelude to split from its main financial partner, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which now supports gay rights.[8] In Uganda in 2010, African Anglican bishops forcefully opposed homosexuality in the church: The question of homosexuality reared its head for the umpteenth time this week at the all African Anglican Church conference that is taking place in Entebbe. Despite pressure from the western world, African bishops have renewed their condemnation of the practice of homosexuality in the church. The widely criticised practice in Africa has been viewed as a threat to the unity of the church. Homosexuality and ordination of women prelates are two of the underpinning practices that have put the Anglican Church at cross-roads over how its pastoral commitments should be exercised. Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of the province of Nigeria says the church has always had differences of opinion over certain issues. Breeding disunity “Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon in the society but the only trouble is that the issues dividing us (church) now are very difficult to handle. They are threatening the unity of the church because they disobey the authority of the scriptures,” says Bishop Okoh. He says homosexuality is a result of some people engaged in making their culture to be superior to the biblical teachings. “It is two sided; while some people want to be obedient to their culture to determine the content of the church, others say no and it must be the guidance of the bible,” he added. The primates describe homosexuality as an imposed interpretation and alien culture that has hindered the growth of an authentic church which could respond to its people. “We are saying homosexuality is not compatible with the word of God. We are saying that this culture of other people is against the traditional belief of marriage held by the Anglican Communion,” says the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi. Bishop Orombi says that the Anglican Church will never accept homosexuality because the scriptures too do not allow people of same sex to join in marriage.[9]

f. South America: Time magazine reported in 2010 that

the legislators of the South American nation passed a law on Thursday, July 15 [2010], that made Argentina the 10th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. By a vote of 33 to 27, they gave homosexual couples the same inheritance and adoption rights as heterosexual ones. Against the intense and sustained opposition of the church, President Cristina FernĆ”ndez staked her political reputation on passing the law, deepening her often bitter feud with the country’s Catholic hierarchy. “I am very satisfied. It has been a positive vote,” said the President in Shanghai, where she is on an official tour of China. “This is a positive step that defends the right of a minority.” Her Cabinet chief AnĆ­bal FernĆ”ndez was slightly more effusive, posting on Twitter, “Same-sex marriage is law in Argentina. Don’t worry, be happy”.[10]

g. However, these views contradict the biblical Scriptures which state that Godā€™s plan for love and sexuality does not include homosexual relationships, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. See Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. The Bible is clear that from the beginning of time, expressions of sexual intimacy were designed for a man and a woman in marriage and there were severe consequences for the practice of homosexuality. h. Heterosexual sin and homosexual sin are so serious that people who continue to practise these sins ā€˜will not inherit the kingdom of Godā€™ (1 Corinthians 6:9). i. Jesus Christ defined marriage: ā€˜ā€œHavenā€™t you read,ā€ he replied, ā€œthat at the beginning the Creator ā€˜made them male and female,ā€™ and said, ā€˜For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one fleshā€™? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separateā€™ (Matthew 19:4-6). j. A nation that dares to promote the violation of God Almightyā€™s laws, is calling for judgment (see Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:5-6). k. ā€˜Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lordā€™ (Psalm 33:12). The New Testament teaches that homosexuals need to be changed by the living Christ and ā€œsuch were some of youā€. Yes, God changes homosexuals.Ā  Read the story of a lesbian whom God radically changed: ā€œOne womanā€™s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howardā€.

 

Notes:

[1] This is from a chapter in the book, Michael Mazzalongo (ed) 1995. Gay Rights or Wrongs: A Christian’s Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

[2] Uniting Network, NSW/ACT, ā€˜Gay and Lesbian Couples: Prayers and blessingsā€™, available at: http://www.unitingnetworkaustralia.org.au/resources/UN%20NSW%20Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Couples.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[3] David Jean, The Advertiser, ā€˜New Anglican bishop welcomes homosexual ministryā€™, November 19, 2011, available at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/gay-clergy-practice-what-we-preach/story-e6frea83-1226199415441 (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[4] See the BBC News report, 5 July 2005, US Church backs same-sex marriage, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[5] See the United Church of Canada, available at: http://www.bible.ca/cr-united-Can.htm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[6] Neils Sorrells 2011. German church allows gay pastors to live with partners. The Huffington Post, 25 May. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/german-church-allows-gay-_n_784518.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[7] Herald Scotland 2011. The gay divide, 28 May. Available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-gay-divide.13864698 (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[8] Wayne M. Anderson n.d. African church waivers on homosexuality. Gnesio [Lutheran], available at: http://gnesiolutheran.com/african-church-waivers-on-homosexuality/ (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[9] Ephraim Kasozi 2012. Uganda: African bishops unite to denounce homosexuality. The Monitor (All Africa). 29 August. Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201008290002.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[10] Uki GoƱi / Buenos Aires 2010. Defying church, Argentina legalizes same-sex marriage. Time, July 15. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2004036,00.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

 

Copyright Ā© 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 23 October 2018.

Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Ā 

God’s view of sex

Free From Jail ChristArt

1.Ā  Freedom

There’s a lot of talk these days about sexual freedom. What is freedom? Freedom to do anything? The apostle Paul to the Corinthians explains in I Corinthians 6:12-13 (New English Bible):

‘I am free to do anything’, you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good. No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one will not let anything make free with me. “Food is for the belly and the belly for food”, you say. True; and one day God will put an end to both. But it is not true that the body is for lust; it is for the Lord‘ (emphasis added).

Ā  The Bible is clear:

  • ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14;Ā  Mt 5:27; Rom 13:9);
  • ‘Flee from sexual immorality’ (1 Cor 6:18);
  • Romans 1:26-27 speaks of homosexuality as involving ‘dishonorable passions’ and ‘shameful acts’; the sexual relations between a man and a woman are called ‘natural relations’ (ESV).

6pointblue-small God, being God, does not have to explain his commands, yet he chose to do so. In I Corinthians 6:13 he tells us why premarital and extramarital heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are wrong: “But it is not true that the body is for lust [i.e. fornication/sexual immorality]; it is for the Lord.”

2.Ā  Purpose

God defines freedom according to the purpose for which something is designed or made: “The body is not meant for sexual immorality” (I Cor. 6:13 NIV). The world in which we live is one where everything has a design and function. John White’s explanation helped me:

You don’t set a fish free from the ocean (poor fish! so confined and restricted!) or birds from the necessity of flight. Birds were designed to fly and fish to swim. They are freest when they are doing what they were designed to do. In the same way your body was not designed for premarital sex [or extramarital sex or homosexual sex] and will never be truly free when you engage in it. . .

The experience of freedom has to do with being loved and loving. God designed you because he loved you. His purposes for you are an expression of his love to you. And as you respond in love to his commands (about sex or anything else) you are set free, free to be and to do what both you and God want. The more completely you are enslaved to his blessed will, the freer you will discover yourself to be (White 1997: 46-47).

I don’t think the best question to ask is: When are sexual relations wrong? But, when are they right? God is very clear, and we are told our purpose, sexually, from the beginning of creation. From creation, God said and we need to understand it for a God-honouring sexual relationship. We can conclude this from God’s description of creation in the early chapters of Genesis:

1. Gen 1:27: Human beings are created spiritual beings, “in the image of God”. God is spirit.

2. Gen 1:27: “Male and female he created them”. God’s revealed will is heterosexuality, from the beginning of creation.

3. Gen 1:28: “God blessed them [male and female] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth.” Sexual intercourse is a gift of God and God’s purpose is that it involves male and female.” One purpose of sexual intercourse is to have children.

4. Gen 1:31: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Sex (between male and female) is very good in God’s sight.

5. Gen 2:18: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'” God brought the animals and birds to Adam to name, “but for Adam no suitable helper was found” (Gen 2:20). So “the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man.” (2:22). And what was the man’s response? “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man” (2:23). That phrase “this is now” could be paraphrased “Wolf whistle”. Man was alone; he needed completion, but that did not come with an animal, nor with another man, but with a woman. Sexuality involves more than behaviour. “It is not good for the man to be alone.” There is a deep yearning for intimacy, connection with another–not a lustful, seductive encounter.

As a former homosexual, Andrew Comiskey explains that this yearning

grows from that God-inspired desire within each of us to break out of the walls of the lone self and merge with another human being. Intercourse is only one expression of this merging…

Sexuality involves longing and desire. The body longs for human touch; the soul desires a companion to ease its aloneness. Such yearning is not a concession to our fallenness. According to the Bible, God deemed Adam–prior to the fall–as not suited to being alone (see Gen. 2:18). The Creator shaped a complement for Adam to provide for his unique emotional and physical needs, as well as for hers… Although Adam and Eve had clear access to God, He realized they needed something more. So He provided for each the gift of the other” (Comiskey (1989:37).

3.Ā  Genesis 2:24 and sexual bonding

This topic has the potential of being controversial. I know from the last 17 years as a full time counsellor and counselling manager (recently retired). When I’ve raised the topic with secular counsellors, they don’t know how to respond as they don’t experience some of these dimensions in counselling.

Why? Their world and life view does not even allow them to get close to asking some of the questions to draw a couple out on this issue. Only occasionally would a couple raise this matter voluntarily with me, but they sure knew how to put one another down if sex wasn’t fulfilling in their relationship (someone, it was alleged, wasn’t performing as he/she ought).

However, I would approach the topic for couples in a rocky relationship with some specific open-ended questions. With the right questions, people have opened up lots for me over the years in therapy.

But very few therapists I have worked with deal with this issue.Let’s get to some biblical basics to help us see what happens in sexual relationships and bonding,

There is more to the creation account in Genesis that has contemporary relevance in a secular society.

Genesis 2:24 states, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ (ESV).

“One flesh” is a powerful symbol of this heterosexual coming together between a man and a woman in marriage. In the act of sexual intercourse, the male and female merge bodies and souls with a bonding that is difficult to describe. However, when this sexual union is ruined through promiscuity, people know it and they’ve told it to me in counselling in various ways down through the years.

Here, one husband unites with one wife to become one flesh. This is monogamous heterosexual marriage which is God’s design for ultimate satisfaction and benefit in marriage. What does it mean for a man and a woman in the sexual relationship to ‘become one flesh’?

Let’s hear from a couple of Hebrew exegetes and how they explain it:

  • H C Leupold: ‘”Becoming one flesh” involves the complete identification of one personality with the other in a community of interests and pursuits, a union consummated in intercourse’ (Leupold 1942:137).
  • C F Keil & F Delitzsch: Genesis 2:24 is

to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Matt. xix.5). By the leaving of mother and father, which applies to the woman as well as the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children…. Marriage itself, notwithstanding the fact that it demands the leaving of father and mother, is a holy appointment of God (Keil & Delitzsch n d:90-91).

So important is this ‘one flesh’ union (bonding) of a man and a woman in sexual intercourse of one man for one woman that Jesus repeats it in Matthew 19:5. This sexual consummation is critical to an understanding of God’s view of marriage. In this biblical aspect of marriage, the only thing that should fracture this union and longevity is sexual infidelity (see Matt 5;31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:7-9). Sexual unfaithfulness is one of the reasons for divorce according to Matthew. First Corinthians 7 gives another.

3.Ā  My observations as a counsellor

I obviously will not be giving confidential information from my 34 years of counselling. But I will note some trends that I noticed in counselling with people who have been in multiple sexual relationships:

  • For many men it is not difficult to have an orgasm. However, many men want the woman to have an orgasmic experience to identify with pleasure and for him to feel fulfilled;
  • After multiple sex partners, there is often a lack of sexual responses in both male and female, but especially with the female; orgasmic experiences are difficult to have.
  • This is because God designed sexual intercourse with a purpose: It should be one man for one woman in sexual union as a bonding, one flesh, experience. One flesh is a deeper union than being a sexual mate.Ā  When that is violated time after time through sexual union with many partners, there is an inner ‘tearing’ of the human being – the soul – that takes place.
  • Practically speaking, this makes it difficult to maintain a healthy sex life and leads to the break down in relationships between a man and a woman. So there is break up after break up in relationships. Multiple sex partners will lead to fragile relationships. They cannot last. That’s because God’s purpose is a ‘one flesh’ relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. I’ve had to deal with men and women weeping bitterly because they cannot get deep satisfaction in the sexual relationship and that flows into the cohabitation/defacto relationship they are having. Break ups then happen. And sometimes there are children who suffer in this trauma.
  • When a secular society promotes freedom to the extent of anything goes in sex – and there is no understanding of the intimate bonding between a man and a woman – there is a natural progression that happens. Sexual relationships break up and the promiscuous cycle goes on and on.
  • Is there a solution? God’s salvation through repentance and forgiveness in Christ brings healing? But too often there are residual thought patterns and hurt that can influence future relationships. Continuous healing is necessary.
  • I pray that this kind of message can get through to youth before their first sexual encounter. The bonding in the sexual relationship is a God-given union that should take place between one man and one woman in marriage. Warn our youth about the consequences of promiscuity. Sexual freedom leads to sexual bondage when fuelled by a secular worldview.
  • And I haven’t discussed the tragedy of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), including HIV.
  • Therefore, ‘necking’ is a dangerous sexual ‘sport’ to play as our emotions lead from one thing to another and before long an illicit sexual relationship is formed. It is extremely difficult to convince youth of the dangers of necking and illicit sex – especially with the availability of condoms and contraceptives.
  • However, illicit sex is dangerous to long-term sexual satisfaction in marriage.
  • Please understand that what I have written above will be challenged by secular psychologists and counsellors who do not understand the deep nature of God’s purpose in sexual intercourse, of bonding through one man for one woman. I have tried to share this with some counsellors and it zooms past them.

God upholds healthy, heterosexual, monogamous relationships as His intention for us. But Genesis 3 tells how the male-female relationship fell from innocence. The entry of sin into the human race caused sexuality to become depraved. All of us are sexually vulnerable. As a result, the heterosexual relationships are just as fallen as homosexual tendencies. So we have a world invaded by fornication (premarital sex), adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, etc. Andrew Comiskey explains:

God never intended for man or woman to seek completion in the same sex. Thus, homosexual pursuit of erotic and emotional bonding violates something basic to our humanity. The Creator, in His inspired Scriptures, has shown that homosexual feelings and behaviors must be identified as resulting from the fall. Homosexuality is one of the many sexual disorders that have become woven into the fabric of sinful humanity (1989:43).This is one example of sexual brokenness. Our only hope for wholeness (to truly love others) is a restored relationship with the Almighty Creator God, through Jesus Christ. When united to Christ, “we grasp our true sexual identity. Our sexual desires must encounter the greater reality of [God] Himself” (Comiskey 1989:13). The God-inspired “longing to connect and ultimately merge with another defines our sexuality” (Comiskey 1989:13). But the whole human race living in sin confuses it.

 

Works consulted

Comiskey, A 1989. Pursuing sexual wholeness. Lake Mary, Florida: Creation House.

Keil, C F & Delitzsch, F n d. Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1. London: Evangelical Press.

White, JĀ  1977. Eros defiled. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at 14 October 2015.

6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small

Sex at its best

Heart Of Love

PublicDomainPictures

By Spencer D Gear

In the early 1990s, I was travelling through Wellington, NSW, AustraliaĀ (between Orange and Dubbo)Ā on my way from Canberra to Queensland. In the menā€™s public toilet I read this graffiti:

‘You saw him, you liked him;You liked him, you loved him;You loved him, you let him;You let him; you lost him’. [1]

Young people, will you be like the teenager who said: “I always thought of myself as a good kid with decent morals. I just wanted freedom and tried to achieve what I thought would be maximum pleasure.Ā  I became painfully disappointed when I found guilt instead of freedom, pain instead of love, suffering instead of pleasure, and distance instead of closeness.” [2]

A. MYTHS AND HALF TRUTHS

This is a permissive, wicked society. Wherever you turn, you are bombarded with sexual/sensual messages that are meant to turn you on sexually. It is far worse for you than it was for me as a teenager over (well) 35 years ago.

Recently my wife reminded me of the Brisbane radio announcer in the late 1960s who played the song, “Let it all hang out.” He said something like: “If I did that, I would be charged with indecent exposure.” If I remember correctly, he was fired before the end of the next song. Now compare that with what you hear on most radio stations.

In this climate you are being sold some myths or half truths:[3]

1. Sex is purely a physical need that is unrelated to the past, has no ramifications for the future, and has no or few negative implications for the present.

2. Others aren’t going through what I am going through. They have it all together.

3. It is possible to be sexually active without harm. There are no lingering consequences. Sex doesn’t touch your inner self.

4. Our immediate choices do not bear results into the future.

5. When things go wrong and relationships fall apart, or we can’t get into a meaningful relationship without self-destructing, we blame ourselves for not being able to cope, instead of examining the practices of our lives.

6. I am making my sexual decisions independent of society, culture, and my immediate environment.

Because of the way sex operates (the way it was designed to do so by God), these myths promote a delusion that overlooks this fact:

The devastating power of sex reverberates through

  • your emotions,
  • your mind,
  • your spirit, and
  • your body.

B. SEX AND THE WOMAN

Dr. Givens notes how sex affects women: “Casual affairs so tax a person’s energy and self-esteem that few [women] pursue recreational sex for long periods of time. They lose respect, both for themselves and for their partners.”[4]Ā  This emotional pain generally won’t be experienced during the relationship, but at the end when she feels like an object that has been used.

One woman who had been into casual sex compared the feeling to “dry ice tearing off a layer of skin.” [5]Ā  This is because for a woman sex is woven in closely with the whole relationship. Loose, casual sex cuts deep into a woman’s being.

We can argue for equal pay, equal working conditions, equal vote, equality before God, and stacks of other ways men and women are equal. But we must never conclude that equality equals sameness.

Women, you lose more than your dignity when you jump into bed with some bloke who claims he loves you. As one women said, based on experience:

None of us is “capable of sailing off into the airy brightness of a concluded love affair… Inevitably there are consequences both internal and external. If bodies are being killed all over the world because of politics rather than love, spirits are being smashed right next door, in apartment houses and shacks and on the street because of love.” [6]

C. SEX AND THE MAN

It is said that a woman “gives sex” but a man “scores.” But sex before marriage has its definite down side for men, although the idea of losing something doesn’t generally affect the man as much as the woman. Of course, he can be affected by a love affair gone bad, but believe it or not, it’s the spiritual dimension that eventually catches up with the man.

Remember Paul’s words to men about marriage: In Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” God’s agape love is a giving kind of love.

Yet, men when they are courting, play the taking, taking, taking game. When they finally commit to marriage, they don’t have what it takes to go the distance for real love. Their inner strength is spent.

I do not find it surprising that the growing divorce rate goes hand in glove with the sexually loose culture we live in.

Why are women torn up inside by loose sex. Why are men not wanting to make the long-term commitment?

 

D.Ā  IT’S THE POWER OF SEX

Just Love

publicdomainpictures.net

This is not the physical ability to thrill. It’s the BONDING POWER OF SEX that lasts. IT IS THIS BONDING POWER THAT LEAVES A TRAIL OF DEVASTATION WHEN IT IS USED OUT OF CONTEXT. GOD’S PURPOSE FOR SEX IS IN MARRIAGE, WITH TWO PEOPLE (MALE AND FEMALE) BONDED FOR LIFE and that involves theĀ SEXUAL UNION.

You put sex into dating and you’ve got an explosive, destructive mixture. When you join with another person outside marriage, an intimate identity is developed as two blend into one. Then it ends; the fabric of the unity is ripped apart.

This is what the apostle Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 6:

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body… Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” (vv 13, 18-20).

Because of this spiritual, psychological, emotional and physical bonding that takes place, when you break off the relationship, the deepest part of your inner being is ripped apart. Spiritually and emotionally you are damaged.

And premarital sex can become compulsive/addictive. You think you are getting what you want–sexual freedom. But you are getting sexual bondage.

Jesus nailed it: “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). To try something once is one of the great deceptions. You try sex outside of marriage once and you will find it difficult to stop. The appetite grows into a hunger that must be satisfied.

In my counselling I come across people who have come from a wild sexual past and they find it almost impossible to build a lasting relationship. The bonding has been too strong. You may think you are indulging your sexual appetite with Mr Macho or Miss Sensational. But you will gain a master that will control you.

There is a deep spiritual factor involved in the sexual relationship–worship.

First Corinthians 6:16-17 says: “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit” (NIV).

Young people, you have got to see this: sex is a spiritual issue. It is impossible for you to commit sexual immorality and still be one with God. Sex has a strong spiritual dimension, as I Cor. 6: 13 says: “The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body.”

The infamous Jim Bakker of PTL television fame commented as his ministry lay in tatters: “It’s amazing how fifteen minutes can ruin your life.”[7] What he did notĀ say was: Not just any fifteen minutes, but fifteen minutes of immorality because of the spiritual bonding and identity.

While Paul speaks of becoming one with a prostitute in I Cor 6:16, he expands it to general immorality is I Cor 6:18, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.”

DO YOU WANT SEX AT ITS BEST? You must surrender your rights to Jesus Christ. You must choose with your actions (not just words) to follow Jesus as Lord. This means refusing to yield to sexual temptation and fleeing sexual immorality. Does your walk match your talk? God says through Paul, “They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him” (Titus 1:16).

cloudclipart (public domain)

But, you ask:

 

E. ISN’T A FAITHFUL SEX RELATIONSHIP OUTSIDE MARRIAGE OK?

This is a puzzle many people grapple with ā€“ not just the young. Why should sex with a permanent partner outside of marriage (even in a defacto relationship) be any different than monogamous marriage? Many think the essential elements of both are identical. The difference is this: God designed marriage; human beings designed the live-in, look-alike, defacto relationship.

I am indebted to Al Haffner for this illustration:

ā€œConsider this: ā€˜It is possible to analyze an apple and ascertain its chemical constituents; but all the chemists in the world cannot make an apple, nor anything that can substitute for it.ā€™ Neither can the world make any relationship do what marriage does, not even a monogamous love affair.ā€[8]

In our way of thinking, there is a vast separation between a faithful lover and one who sleeps around. From Godā€™s point of view, He lumps all sex outside of marriage into the same heap because sex makes a spiritual statement.

ā€œInside marriage it is the melodious beauty of spiritual serenity; outside of marriage, even in a monogamous relationship, sex cries out a cacophony of spiritual chaos.ā€ [9]

When you indulge in ā€œsexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greedā€ this amounts to idolatry, according to Colossians 3:5-6, because it is self-serving selfishness, opposed to serving God and ā€œbecause of these, the wrath of God is coming.ā€

 

F. SEX IN MARRIAGE

Ladybird Mating

Ladybird mating (Public Domain)

 

Sex has such a bonding effect that it rips the heart out of people premaritally involved, especially when they part.

Then take a look at what is happening with the devastation of sexually transmitted diseases. They are spreading like wild-fire. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 250 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases each year. It is largely those who have advocated a permissive approach to sex who have helped produce this epidemic–not those advocating abstinence.

In 1981 there were 20 different STDs, 1984 there were 28 different STDs, 1988 there were 51. In 1992 they were approaching 60 STDs, with a new one discovered every nine months. They can cause birth defects, infertility, life-long pain, cancer and other diseases. Most young people do not understand how serious STDs are. [10]

I don’t have the Australian figures, but “ten to twenty million American women are now sterile because of sexual infections from promiscuity; the figures may go as high as one-fourth of all women of childbearing age.” [11]

When you play around sexually before or after marriage, you aren’t just participating in an innocent private affair for consenting adults. Your so-called private acts may infect your spouse and children for as long as they live–some STDs are not curable (I’m not just talking about HIV). “One chance encounter can infect a person with as many as five different diseases.” [12]

When you have sex with somebody other than your faithful marriage partner, you are having contact with every sexually transmitted disease that person has had contact with. And don’t kid yourself that the other person will be honest about the sexually transmitted diseases he or she has or how many sex partners he or she has had.

Even on this physical level, God’s law makes utter common sense:

3d-red-star-smallĀ “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14).

3d-red-star-smallĀ “Flee from sexual immorality” (I Cor 6:18).

Christian values are being degraded in Australia, but the simple fact is: abiding by God’s values would have prevented the entire STD epidemic. Christian obstetrician and gynaecologist, Dr. Joe McIllhaney puts it so well:

“If sex is avoided until marriage and then engaged in only in marriage, all these sexually transmitted diseases would be of no importance at all because they could not enter into a closed circle relationship between husband and wife. Such an approach is not only not naive, it is also not moralizing, but it is now necessary.”[13]

 

G. WHAT ARE GOD’S REASONS FOR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT SEX?

We must begin by understanding the character of God.

  • not a killjoy wanting to ruin your fun,
  • he didn’t make us to enjoy sex and then frustrate us,
  • God made and designed us,
  • He knows everything.
  • Only God knows what is best for us.

i love you 2Ā Ā  Just LoveĀ  All You Need Is LoveĀ  Love You Forever

All-free-download.com

Deuteronomy 10:13, “Observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.”

Those last four words are critical: for your own good. All of God’s commands to us, all of his requirements are not to break us and kill our joy, but they are for our own good.

Psalm 84:11, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.

James 1:17, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

He knows how your total being works–body, mind and spirit. God knows how human relationships function most fully and joyfully. God is not trying to stop us from having a wonderful sex life. He is giving us the positive instruction to have the most wonderful sex life possible.

I have found many Christians ignorant of this perspective. I was ignorant of it for many years and it destroyed my approach to sex in my teens.

If you look on God’s commands–you shall not commit adultery, flee sexual immorality, etc., as negative and designed to frustrate your enjoyment, you will miss what God wants for your sexual enjoyment. Remember, these negatives are given for positive reasons.

When my children were young, I warned them: do not touch a hot stove plate. That was very negative and it looked like I might have been stopping them from having fun. But it was really a positive command. If my Paul had burned himself, it would have prevented him from enjoying life for a while–maybe permanently.

That’s how it is with God: Whenever he gives a command, there are at least two positive reasons behind it:

1. He’s trying to protect us from some harm, and2. He’s trying to provide something good for us.

 

Kondom.jpg

(Rolled-up condom Wikipedia)

H. CONNED BY THE CONDOM

One of the greatest pressures for you today will come in this form.

1. IF IT’S NOT ON, IT’S NOT ON!

2.THAT FEELING … DOESN’T STOP HIV: SAFE SEX DOES

6pointGold-smallĀ As young people, you are bombarded with the message: Sex is great whenever you can get it, and that waiting for marriage is for fuddy-duddy’s–incredibly old fashioned people like me.”

I remember the story back in 1993 about young Eve (who went from Australia to New Zealand), the 11-year-old who died of AIDS, [14] acquired from an infected blood transfusion. She had not experienced the message she was promoting. This dying child would recite from memory something she had been given to learn: “Always use a condom when you have sex with your lover.” [15] What a shame that an innocent young dying child should be used to promote the myth of safe sex.

One of your greatest threats is that you may be CONNED BY THE CONDOM message. This is one of my major concerns for youth. You are in danger of submitting to the propaganda that condom use will make “safe sex” possible.

What the government and media don’t trumpet loudly is this:

1. The “safe sex” message is a disaster in the making. Condoms have a failure rate of at least 15.7%. I have yet to see this as a significant emphasis in any of the government or advertising programs.

15.7% failure rate for condoms represents the percentage of married women using the condom as a contraceptive, who will become pregnant over the course of a year.

It seems that you also are not being told clearly this information: It is possible to become pregnant once a month–a woman can conceive only one-three days per month. But we can only guess how high the failure rate for condoms must be in preventing disease, which can be transmitted 31 days of every month–365 days a year. [16]

2. You also will not be told that the failure rate of condoms in the survey I have just mentioned was shockingly higher for certain groups of people: among young, unmarried, minority women (in the US this generally means black women) the failure rate was over one-in-three (36.3%). Among unmarried Hispanic (generally, Mexican) women in the US, it is as high as 44.5%–that’s approaching one-in-two condoms will fail.[17]3. You will not be told condoms cannot be accurately tested for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. So researchers have been studying surgical gloves made out of latex, the same material as condoms.

They found “channels” of 5 microns width penetrated the entire thickness of the glove. [18]

The HIV virus measures .1 of a micron. [19]

In other words, the latex of condoms has channels through it that are 50 times wider than the HIV virus, which makes it a possibility that the virus could seep through the rubber (latex) of the condom.

4. The Bible is very clear that God’s purpose for you is to save your sexual relationship until marriage. Sexual purity before marriage and sexual fidelity in marriage are God’s plan. However, I ask you: based on the information I have just shared with you about condoms, do you think youth should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?

No other approach to the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases will work. Abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. That’s exactly what God designed for the maximum sexual joy of human beings. The “safe sex” message you are getting from schools, universities, the government, the mass media, is a disaster in the making.

I believe it is criminal for me or anybody to tell you that that little latex device, called a condom, is “safe.” You are risking life-long pain and even death for a brief encounter of pleasure.

 

I.Ā Ā  WHAT WOULD THE PROFESSIONALS SAY?

What do you think the “professionals” who advocate “safe sex” would say about the information I have just shared with you, if they were sitting in on my message today? Would they call me a scare-monger who is undermining what the government is doing to prevent the spread ofĀ HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases? Would they say I am out of touch?

I have been in the counselling field for 34 years, 17 years full time as a counsellor and counselling manager. I deal with real people with real diseases. I am seeing the sad consequences of people who thought they could get away with the ā€˜safe sexā€™ message and are living with the highly infectious, appallingly painful blisters of genital herpes.

I will not go into what gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia (pelvic inflammatory disease), HIV, and other STDs can do. “Sleeping around has always been unhealthy, now it is becoming suicidal.” [20]

What would the “professionals” say about my warning? I’ll give just one example. Dr. Theresa Crenshaw, past president of the American Association of Sex Education, Counsellors and Therapists, and a member of the national AIDS Commission, had first-hand experience with the “professionals.” She says this:

On June 19, 1987, I gave a lecture on AIDS to 800 sexologists at the World Congress of Sexologie in Heidelberg [Germany]. Most of them recommended condoms to their clients and students. I asked them if they had available the partner of their dreams, and knew that person carried the virus, would they have sex, depending on a condom for protection? No one raised [his/her] hand. After a long delay, one timid hand surfaced from the back of the room. I told them that it was irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves. The point is, putting a mere balloon between the healthy body and the deadly disease is not safe (emphasis added). [21], [22]

J.Ā  More recent statistics

The story of the condom tragedy hasn’t changed. What is more recent research saying? The following “Teen Sex and Pregnancy: Facts and Figures” provide statistics that are just as alarming as in the late 1980s [23].

In preventing pregnancy, condoms have a standardized failure rate of 15.7 percent over the course of a year. [EF Jones and JD Forrest, “Contraceptive Failure in the US: Revised Estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth” Family Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 3, May/June 1989, p.103.]

For persons under the age of 18, condoms were found to fail 18.4 percent of the time after one year of use. [MD Hayward and J Yogi, “Contraceptive Failure Rate in the US: Estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth,” Family Perspectives, Vol 18, No. 5, Sept/Oct 1986, p. 204.]

Among sexually active teenage girls aged 12 to 18, 30% contracted an STD over a six month period, including condom users. [LM Dinerman et al, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Med, 149(9):967-72, Sept 1995.]

For unmarried minorities, the condom failure rate is 36.3 percent, and for unmarried Hispanics, the failure rate is as high as 44.5 percent. [Jones and Forrest, 1989, p. 105.]

Among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17 percent of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. [Contraceptive Technology, Hatcher et al, 1990, p. 173.] That is a rate greater than one in six. Statistically speaking, the uninfected partners would have been better off playing Russian Roulette.

Only 7 percent of HIV positive persons voluntarily notify their sexual partners. [New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 9, 1992.] For a more recent discussion of this HIV partner notification issue, see,

1. Update on Condoms & Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)

a. Are condoms a safe protection against STDs?

“Latex or polyurethane (plastic) condoms are useful in helping to prevent certaindiseases, such as HIV and gonorrhea. However, they are less effective protecting against herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. Condoms provide almost no protection against HPV, the cause of genital warts and cervical cancer” [24]

b. In particular are condoms a save way to prevent contracting HIV/AIDS?

Although condoms will reduce your chance of infection, compared to having sex without any form of protection, one in three AIDS victims will contract the disease from an infected partner despite 100% use of condoms. One study found that among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17% of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. The best way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. [24]

Another has emphasised: “There is only one way to protect ourselves from the deadly [sexual] diseases that lie in wait. It is abstinence before marriage, then marriage and mutual fidelity for life to an uninfected partner. Anything less is potentially suicidal” and definitely against God’s purpose for your sexual expression. [25]

Perhaps you’re saying, “That is not realistic today. It won’t work. Kids will not put it into practice.”

Some will.Ā  Some won’t. I want to be honest. But it is still the only ultimately successful answer, and I must warn you of the bad consequences of the “safe sex” message. If I knew my teenager was going to have intercourse, I would not recommend the use of the condom because it gives five dangerous messages. They are:

1. You can achieve “safe sex.” From what I’ve said so far, it should be evident that that is not possible.

2. It tells you that everybody is doing it–that’s not so.

3. It says that responsible adults expect you to do it. I never want to give any young person that information.

4. If I tell you to use a condom, it gives you the message that it’s a good thing. I hope I’ve shown you that it is not, and terribly dangerous.

5. Another danger of recommending condoms is that it has the potential to breed promiscuity–sleeping around with anybody.

These are five destructive messages I NEVER want to convey to any young people. “Safe sex” is a very dangerous message.

Our society does not want to give you the message: Say, “No,” to premarital sex. Of course, that would be imposing their views on you if they promoted abstinence–and that would be moralistic. However, what do you think the “safe sex” message is? Just that! Imposing the view that sex with anybody is okay, as long as the male wears a condom.

If you want to consider more reasons for saying “NO” to premarital sex, I suggest reading Why Wait? by Josh McDowell and Dick Day. [27]

Heb. 13:4, “Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

In I Thess. 4:3-8, God says he will judge sexual immorality. God is holy and will judge those who break his commands.

King David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11-12) is a perfect example of this. Out of adultery a child was born, and in judgment God took the son’s life. It was a painful judgment for David.

Remember this: the Lord doesn’t always judge immediately, but it is always sure. Stay pure for God. God doesn’t want you to suffer at the hands of his justice.

If you abstain from sex now, it is because God wants you to experience greater intimacy later–in marriage. But God is also calling you before marriage to greater intimacy with Himself.

 

K. CONCLUSION

Young people, there are many valid reasons for you to say “NO” to premarital sex. God really is acting in love when He commands that sex be enjoyed with in the bonds of marriage.

This is a message of prevention for those who are virgins. God loves you and wants to protect you from entering into the damaging consequences of illicit sex.

On the other hand, I know there may be some here today for whom this message is too late–you have lost your virginity, you are loaded down with guilt, you know what I have been saying is true. What can you do?

Run to Jesus. You cannot undo what you have done, but you can be forgiven. God will lay down all charges against you if you repent and ask his forgiveness. The biblical message for all Christians who sin is I John 1:9, “If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

You can be forgiven today. If the Lord has convicted you about sexual sin in your life, respond to him. I am not going to embarrass you by asking you to respond publicly, but I am asking you to go and speak with your leaders or a trusted Christian friend who will pray and counsel with you.

Please remember: what is shared with you in confidence, stays confidential.

 

Do you want sex at its best?

Flower18Ā Wait for the sexual relationship until marriage.

Flower18Ā If that is too late, confess your sin and remain chaste.

Flower18Ā Be faithful in marriage.

The story is told of Alexander the Great who was reviewing his troops after a fierce battle. He encountered one of his captains disciplining a soldier for being a coward. Alexander approached.

“What is your name, soldier?” he asked.

“Alexander,” replied the soldier.

“What?” exclaimed Alexander the Great.

“Sir, my name is Alexander!” said the soldier.

Trembling with rage, Alexander the Great yelled, “Soldier, either change your ways, or you change your name.” [26]

As soldiers in Christ’s army, we must stop acting cowardly in the face of sexual temptation, or we should change our name–which will have eternal consequences. In this sexually perverted generation, the words of I Corinthians 4:20 come thundering through: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” Change your ways or change your name.

First Corinthians 7:2-5 (NLT)Ā is a key passage in understanding God’s view of sex at its best.

Endnotes:

[1] I have since located it on the Internet as ā€˜Break Up Quote #177582ā€™, Witty, available at: http://www.wittyprofiles.com/q/177582Ā (Accessed 30 November 2013).

[2] Al Haffner, The High Cost of Free Love. San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1989, p. 11.

[3] Ibid., p. 15.

[4] Ibid., p. 19.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.,

[7] Ibid, p. 31

[8] Ibid, p. 34

[9] Ibid.

[10] In John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Myth of Safe Sex. Chicago: Moody Press, 1993, chapter 5).

[11] Ibid., p. 54.

[12] Ibid., p. 57.

[13] In ibid., p. 63.

[14] The Canberra Times, 21 November 1993, p. 1.

[15] The Canberra Times letter-to-the-editor, November 27, 1993, p. 16.

[16] This statistic comes from Planned Parenthood, USA: Elise F. Jones and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, “Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Revised estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth,” Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 3, May/June 1989, p. 103.

[17] Ibid., p. 105.

[18] Susan G. Arnold, James E. Whitman Jr., Cecil H. Fox and Michele H. Cottier-Fox, “Latex Gloves Not Enough to Exclude Viruses,” Nature 335, (September 1, 1988), p. 19.

[19] Nancy E. Dirruba, “The Condom Barrier,” American Journal of Nursing, October 1987, p. 1306.

[20] Patrick Dixon, The Truth About AIDS. Eastbourne, E. Sussex, United Kingdom: Kingsway Publications, 1987, 29.

[21] Theresa Crenshaw. From remarks made at the National Conference on HIV, Washington DC, November 15-18, 1987.

[22] All of the above quotes on condoms are from: “Condom Roulette,” In Focus, Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC, 20005.

[23] Westside Pregnancy Resource Center (2002a), 12247 Santa Monica Blvd., W. Los Angeles CA 90025, homepage at: http://www.wprc.org/. These statistics on “Teen Sex and Pregnancy: Facts and Figures” were retrieved on May 26, 2002 from: http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens.html. See also Drew, D. (1995). “Condom ‘safe sex’ theory full of holes,” retrieved on May 26, 2002 from http://dianedew.com/condom.htm (based on an article written for The Covington News, March 16, 1995).

[24] Westside Pregnancy Resource Center (2002b). “Birth Control Questions & Answers: Frequently Asked Questions,” retrieved on May 26, 2002, from: http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/faqcondoms.html#aids.

[25] James Dobson, Focus on the Family newsletter, February 13, 1992, p. 3.

[26] Haffner, p. 91.

[27] McDowell, J. & Day, D. (1987) Why Wait? What You Need to Know About the Teen Sexuality Crisis. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers.

God’s rules for living are always meant for our best and NEVER to hurt or restrict us.

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.Ā  This document last updated at: 14 October 2015.