Thinking about Sex: Pt 2
November 6, 2004
Since I forked over $9.99 for this T-Mobile HotSpot internet access at Starbucks (when will they frickin’ get free WiFi?!), I felt the need to get over here and use it again before we left Chicago. The conference has continued to go well, and the speakers yesterday and this morning have been pretty interesting. Last night, previous PCUSA Moderator Susan Andrews preached on Eros & Ethics, and this morning I just heard Luke Timothy Johnson (NT prof at Candler School of Theology @ Emory) speak on Sexuality & the Holiness of the Church: pretty interesting stuff. I am going to write specific posts for each of those lectures on the flight home, so be looking for those. Yesterday in our small group we talked a lot about what the church has been teaching about sex…
The conversation was over pretty quick, obviously. The church does not preach, teach, mentor, counsel, advise about sex…at least no church I’ve been involved with (and if your church does, in a good way, maybe you could share that). And so what do we do with that? After being in Idaho for 2 years doing youth ministry, that’s interesting to me - how do we share with kids about sex. I never did in Idaho. Sure, we had a little “relationships” talk but we didn’t talk about sex or sexuality. The only sex talk the high school boys I worked with ever remembered from junior high, involved a piece of bread being passed around, all of them having to lick it and that was supposed to gross all of them out and make them realize that by having sex with people, they were “licking someone else’s piece of bread.”
Yah. Now I feel like a bit of an ass for not doing something after hearing that story…
Many in my small group were complaining that there was no good sex curriculum out there for youth, and if there was any curriculum, it was put out by more conservative groups that would have come down hard on any youth questioning their sexuality at all, and it would have been a simple, 100% abstinence-driven approach. And from the tone in their voices and the way they described it, this was a bad thing.
I don’t have any memory of any sex-curriculum, sex ed, or anything from youth group that I would have learned growing up. I don’t think that is a good thing. But I also know others who grew up in youth groups where it was so laid back that youth leaders stressed experimentation with sex and acceptance of even such lifestyle choices as polygamy as something that was good simply because it involved love. It seems to me that these are some pretty polarized extremes, but they are brought about by the same method of dealing with the issue: not talking about it.
Some don’t talk about sex, and people in the church assume that it’s not something we should talk about, it’s not a good/safe/appropriate topic - it’s bad. Others don’t talk about it, and people in the church assume that your sex life and sexuality has nothing to do with the body of Christ, with being in a community of people striving to follow after Christ - that it’s just sort of a free-for-all. I don’t think either of these perspectives adequately takes into account our desire to be followers of Christ - and neither of these takes into account the real desire people have to be able to have a safe place to discuss issues of sexuality and sex.
I know abstinence doesn’t really work. We can be idealists all we want, but kids still have sex. It’s just a fact that we need to accept. Is that okay? I don’t think so - I want youth to be comfortable, sexually, in their own skin - to feel free to talk about sex, their sexuality and how they are going to intimately express their sexuality to someone they care about. But just because abstinence, as an evangelically-driven-marketing-scheme to keep kids out of each others’ pants, has failed - that doesn’t mean we should drop it. In allowing students to become comfortable sexually, I think there is still room for discussing the responsibilities of sex, the holy, sanctity of sex, and give students the option to save that sacramental act for the person they choose to spend the rest of their lives with (although, we’re certainly not going to accomplish that with cheesy ads like this one).
Abstinence is important…but if teaching abstinence is not really working, what then do we teach? How do we teach about sex & sexuality in our churches?
Tags: Abstinence, Conference, Covenant-Network, Sex, Sex-Curriculum, Sex-Education, Sexuality
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 6th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
i can’t wait to hear what you thought of luke timothy johnson.
November 6th, 2004 at 2:23 pm
First, I would disagree that well-presented abstinence education is a failure. Second, I would disagree with the idea that there are no churches presenting good “theological chatter” about sexuality. And third, I want to take issue with the notion that we should be talking about sex a lot.
Let me explicate those in reverse order: Our culture is overly obsessed with sexuality to the point that sex has become an American cult, and the orgasm the pinnacle of divine experience. Of course, cultures throughout time have done this, but part of our basic theology as Christians is that sex ISN’T life, and that Eve Ensler, creator of the Vagina Monologues, is incorrect when she asserts that our sexual organs are analogous with our “essence.” Let’s not be deceived into letting the over-stimulation of American culture drive our discussion about something that God has repeatedly taught us to put in its place.
And that touches the heart (or maybe something else) in the whole sexuality/Christianity debate — the basic teaching of Scripture on sexuality is PUT IT IN ITS PLACE. Do not worship it, do not abuse it, do not use it in ways that destroy instead of unite. And American culture (and many others) repeatedly sins by either over-emphasizing sex, or under-emphasizing sex. Christians have traditionally done the latter, but it’s still a sin, a sin of omission, because we’ve omitted sexuality from the place it should have in our lives.
This brings me to POINT TWO: I disagree that all churches are doing a poor job of teaching on sexuality. I spent the past 8 years in youth/college ministry where we taught on sexuality and sexually related issues on a consistent basis. Our youth ministry was statistically among the largest 5% in the nation, and we actually GAINED kids based upon the way in which we covered sexual topics. I know this because students told me; the most recent was a girl from a non-Christian home who told me just before I left for seminary that the reason she’d joined our youth group a year prior was because she was so impressed by the series of talks we’d done on sexuality. To this day the fill-in-the-blank handouts from that series are tacked to the ceiling above her bed.
So, what’s the content behind this series, and the others we developed? While there isn’t enough space to explain everything we taught, the foundational principles were these: 1) God created sex and sexuality, and God created it as a gift, not a curse; 2) God has a plan and purpose for our sexuality, and so sex has a proper teleological function and purpose. We can argue about what these principles mean, and how they work in reality, but I’m not sure it’s possible to reject those principles while talking about the God revealed in Scripture. And, as simple as they are, they provide a profound basis for powerful teaching on sexuality. And so in 8 years of youth ministry I’ve had discussions with kids concerning lactation, masturbation, menstruation, what an orgasm feels like, what an orgasm should feel like, making out, feeling up, going down, going out, getting in, and steering clear. Maybe that evidences the third principle we employed: a willingness to talk about it. In fact, two nights ago I woke to the phone ringing at 1am, and when I answered it there were a couple youth/college kids from my previous church on the line. They’d forgotten there is a time change between New Jersey and Idaho, and so they apologized, but said they were calling with just one question: “Did you and Kristina (my wife) ever have sex at Fall Retreat?” Unfortunately, I had to tell them, “no.” Funny call? Only if you’ve never done good sex talks in ministry, and haven’t been transparent about the proper role it plays in your life. Every high school kid in my youth group found out why I didn’t go to camp two summers ago. My wife was ovulating. Too transparent? No. It wasn’t like I announced it at youth group, but I wasn’t going to lie when they asked, and they need to see good sexuality practiced in front of them. (And, yes, in a Christian context that means something other than plunking them down in front of a porn tape.)
Finally, I disagree that good abstinence education has failed. Good abstinence education actually works. Poor abstinence education doesn’t. We took an annual blind survey of our students, and asked them about sexual habits among other things. In our youth ministry where 40% of students came from non-Christian homes, our rate of reported sexual activity was relatively low. Did we have kids having sex? Of course. But we also saw a drop in sexual activity over 6 years, and more importantly, we saw kids who decided to change their behavior based upon their understanding of the proper place and use of their God-given sexuality.
The fact is, teaching abstinence alone does not work unless STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING/PURPOSE OF SEX AND WHY THEY MIGHT CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN BASED ON THEIR CHOSEN IDENTIFICATION WITH GOD AND GOD’S PEOPLE. In other words? Without a personal relationship with God, and an understanding of God’s purposes for sexuality, abstinence is meaningless.
November 6th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
adam,
thanks for this post and the issues it raises. scripture union (a uk publishing and ministry house) asked me (and a friend) to write a book for teenagers about sex and relationships from a biblical perspective. it’s called Friends First, and while writing it we held loads of focus groups with young people. they were very honest with us (both christians and non-christians) and they are quoted throughout the book. its not a big book (100 pages or so) but if you would like a copy i would be happy to send you a complimentary copy. just drop me an e-mail.
you can read a review of it at:
http://www.christian-teachers.org.uk/digest/FriendsFirst.htm
November 6th, 2004 at 4:24 pm
I also thank you for this post Adam, it’s great. I think one of the desperate needs, that will extend into many issues, for the church is to develop an appropriate theology of sex and sexuality. You’re right about the current Victorian views that are linked with the church, we definately need to develop a healthy theology of sex, and this has to start with speaking openly about it (like you are doing).
November 6th, 2004 at 5:07 pm
looking forward to this series of posts. Keep’em coming.
dwight
November 6th, 2004 at 10:20 pm
I think it really depends on the person as to whether or not preaching abstinance works. Lets face it, some people are just naturally stronger and more resistant to presure than others. I also feel that if that is the case, they need to be presented with “safe” options to sex. Whether this should be up to the church or the school, however, is beyond me, though for different kids different things would be best. the point is that they need to hear somewhere.
I think, however, rather than teaching that sex is bad or even that it is a gift from God to married people, we also need to make sure to stress that God loves all of us no matter what we do. I had a girl in a small group up at camp this summer who opened up to me about some of the choices she had made that she knew the best choices she could have made. She was heart broken because she had not waited to have sex, even though that was her intention, because she had gotten caught up in the moment. She was in tears with me because all she ever heard was how much it was “a gift to the married” and how much of a sin it was. As much as she was always told that Jesus would forgive any sin, this one seemed somehow different because of how it had been emphasized and portrayed to the youth of her church. To her it became the unforgivable sin, and I think that churches, more often than not, cause people to feel this and that is something that they are going to have to try harder to avoid doing.
November 7th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
Andrew, thanks for your comments (lengthy though they were) – I always appreciate hearing your thoughts. I know I keep mentioning Song of Songs, but is that a place where you think God is telling us to put our sexuality “in its place.” It seems to be pretty explicit. We do live in an uber-sexxed-up American culture is obsessed with sex, but I don’t think that God really wants us to put it in its place as much as you are suggesting. Our sexualities are just as much of who we are as our spirituality, physicality, emotionality (am I making up words here?), intelligence, etc. I think what I am just arguing for, and what I think you’d agree with, is for a total, completely (w)holistic approach to human development talked about in the church. So, as much as we talk about our spirituality, let’s talk about sexuality. As much as we talk about our sexuality, let us talk about intellectual development, and about the physical development and maintenance of our bodies. Is that such a bad thing for a church…? To create whole, holistically-developed-conscious followers of Christ?
Yah, I think your ministry at TFNaz did pretty much rock and I think that’s awesome that you were so sexually transparent (hmm, not sure that sounds right…) with your kids – I think what I’m saying is that is an anomaly – definitely not the norm for Evangelical, evangelical, mainline, liberal, any churches nowadays…that’s all for now.
Brandy, you bring up an important point. What about people in our ministries and our network of friends who have had sex? How has the church taught us to love and extend grace to them? I know that it’s extremely hard for people to share about past sexual experiences because there is so much guilt involved, both put on them by the church, by themselves, by God (people often think). How can we create a place where people know the importance, the sacramental holiness of sex - but yet understand the true forgiveness of God to those who have had sexual experiences?
November 8th, 2004 at 8:03 am
I think it’d be great to have more candid conversations in a church context about sex; something like a Sunday School class (for those still running that format) on Human Sexuality. That’s where it’d be better addressed, than the college campus. To be truly human is what the Gospel has to offer.
According to one research, abstinence does work http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/apr/03041402.html
it sounds like you’re saying that “abstinence doesn’t work” b/c some kids are still having sex? It doesn’t matter what you teach, there will still be some kids having sex. Nothing you do or don’t do will absolutely prevent kids having sex. People are sexual beings indeed, and they also have free will.
November 8th, 2004 at 11:32 am
Adam,
Thanks, and yet I have two nagging thoughts/questions:
1) I’m all for being wholistic, but are we sure that wholism (now I’m making up words) is synonymous with equality? I thought being wholistic was about recognizing our complexity, but I’m not sure I buy the idea that it’s about giving every aspect of our being equal weight. Should we really talk EQUALLY in the church about sexuality and spirituality?
2) Is sexuality really a fundamental aspect of our being? Is sexuality really a category that defines us at an existential level the way that we are physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual? And are THOSE words even fundamental? I’ve never flinched before when anyone has included “sexual” in the list of the fundamental spheres of human existence, and yet I’m wondering if this is another consequence of our modern obsession with sex. Adam, in your third post, I gather a hint of the same uneasiness when you say, “We are all sexual beings (though let’s not let that be the #1 aspect of our persons that defines us).” Yes, we are sexual, but are we fundamentally sexual? And if we are going to say, “Yes, we are fundamentally sexual beings… our sexuality cannot be separated from us without losing part of our humanity,” then we have some major theological work to do. Not least among the issues is that Scripture seems to affirm that all aspects of our humanity are preserved in the afterlife. We are physical, emotional, spiritual creatures, and yet we have Jesus telling us in the gospels that in the Kingdom we will “neither marry, nor be given in marriage, [we] will be like the angels in heaven.” The implication is both that angels do not have exclusive possession of one another, nor are they romping around in sexual exploits. Is Jesus saying that our sexuality is obliterated in the Kingdom to come? I don’t know, but thought these are questions worth asking…
November 9th, 2004 at 11:46 pm
i usually jive a lot with what you say here, but i have to strongly differ on this one, and not just in terms of youth, but in terms of the whole sexuality question. we have taken sex and placed it firmly in the center of the question of identiy, not just with youth, but with humanity in general, making it a necessity in order for us to be human. in the words of spong, if you’ve not been sexual, you’ve not been human, which is a load. abstainence, while idealistic, is ideal-istic, in that it communicates the standard that creation was meant for: one person with one other person for life. i’m all for encouraging kids to understand that sex is a good thing, that emotions are great, and that desiring another person is all natural, but to speak of sex in terms of one’s identity is not only theological baloney, but pretty ridiculous. to say that our penis or vagina is central to our identity is to say that reproduction or sexual gratification is ontologically part of our reason for being. as a presbyt., you know better than that. as a Christian, you know better. not to say that sex is antithetical or dangerous, but when taken out of the context of mutual communication in the right context and taken into the realm of ontology, where it is not strong enough to survive, sex becomes weak, causing the rest of our personality to collapse around it.
November 10th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Just commenting on Myle’s comment. Are we talking about sexuality, sex, or anatomy here? I’m not a huge fan of Spong, but I do agree that to not have been *sexual* is to not be fully human. Sexuality encompasses a lot more than intercourse, and it is definitely central to my identity. My relationships with women are different to my relationships with men, and my relationships with gay male friends are different to those with my straight male friends, and my relationships with my straight female friends are different to those with my gay female friends, and…
November 10th, 2004 at 11:09 am
spong would take “sexual” to be experiential, not ontological. of course, because we are, we are sexually differentiated due to genetics. however, to place taht , in whatever sense, in the center of our being, is idolotrous.
November 10th, 2004 at 5:26 pm
Since you asked…
I am greatly encouraged by Andrew Z’s comments on the issue; sex and sexuality ought not to be considered dirty or hidden in the sense of shameful. The goal of sex education ought not to be abstinence, but rather the right understanding of sexuality as God-given, but also a gift that is affected deeply by the Fall and in need of the redemptive work of Christ.
Many people experience sexuality as a curse and not a gift, and I think this is because of unholy experiences rather than a lack of good conversations and sound theology. Those things can put sex in it’s proper perspective, however. I think that holy celibacy or marriage are the two options that come from the “proper perspective,” but just wanting kids to be abstinent when one doesn’t even have a consistant theology in place oneself is silly.
I’m used to hearing arguements for abstinence like, “your virginity is a gift, blah blah blah.” For lots of us, our sexuality has been, for better or worse, the gift that keeps on giving. Ahem. That results from and leads to personal disintegration, because we really aren’t meant to have intense, one flesh unions, with lots of people.
Anybody who reads the Gospels really ought to know from Jesus’ treatment of the sexually broken that there really is good news: for all of those who are promiscuous, used, abused, and just plain can’t get it together, misused and twisted sexuality, to any degree, isn’t the end of the world.
Bottom line? Churches need to talk about sex and sexuality, but also what redemptive sexuality would look like, as opposed to “what ought to be.”
November 11th, 2004 at 12:51 am
Kyle, ohh… i like it.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:50 am
so i see that talking about sex really gets a lot of posts…i’ll have to remember that for my blog…
i see one flaw in all of this that i don’t think that anyone has touched on. it is the child/parent relationship. i had a great sex ed in my church, but i still did some experimenting, as did most of the kids that i grew up with, and i think that it directly relates to our relationship we had with our parents and the openness about sex there was with them, or lack there of. one night i came home pretty depressed about something and wanted to talk to my dad about it and from the other room my mom yells, “you tell him not to have sex till he’s married!” yeah…thanks mom…
someone earlier made this comment…
“The fact is, teaching abstinence alone does not work unless STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING/PURPOSE OF SEX AND WHY THEY MIGHT CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN BASED ON THEIR CHOSEN IDENTIFICATION WITH GOD AND GOD’S PEOPLE. In other words? Without a personal relationship with God, and an understanding of God’s purposes for sexuality, abstinence is meaningless.”
i think that is a bunch of bull…can you really put “theological meaning/purpose” and teenager in the same sentence with each other. too often we just want kids to “understand”, to “get it”, and because they understand and get it, they will decide not to “get some”. i propose that even if a kid has an incredible understanding of God’s purpose for sexuality, if you really can understand that fully anyway, if a kid has no parents, or strong “parental figure” that they trust and can talk to about sex, they’re probably going to do it. teens need trust and relationship with people. for a teenager, God isn’t tangible, not that God is supposed to be tangible, but we can’t expect them to just suck it up and when sex comes there way just remember what the theological implications of sex are. i am all for abstinence, because sex in the teens, and sometimes sex before marriage in general, can be emotional and otherwise detrimental, but we cannot just teach them some bible verses and expect them to keep it in their pants!
November 11th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
Greggoryjames said:
“can you really put ‘theological meaning/purpose’ and teenager in the same sentence with each other?”
Ah, yes. I think I can, and I do. I should hope that Average Joe or Jane Youth Pastor would have a mind toward teaching their kids to grow into the adults their parents might not have been. As I said, I think abstinence education is needful, but on the basis of a redemptive theology of sex and relationships. Teenagers are little people growing out of being little automatons and into adulthood, and rapport can actually be built by loving adults who will treat them like people who can make informed decisions.
Are you arguing that a strong parental relationship is what is needed, as opposed to teaching kids their identity in Christ as a basis for decision making? I.e., back to “Because I said so”? I think those are both powerful and needful pedagogical aids — and teaching these kids to live with God and each other is the whole point, I would argue — and are not mutually exclusive.
November 11th, 2004 at 12:16 pm
Oh, and nobody said anything about teaching kids a few Bible verses and expecting them to “keep it in their pants.” I think I was talking about teaching and modeling ways to live into redemptive sexuality. Very different, and just a *bit* more nuanced.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
thanks for your nuance.
what i am talk about is a support system that get’s neglected because we have taught kids what god thinks, and so we ignore the impact the parents have on how kids think about sexuality. i have a degree in adolescent studies. i have read the stats about how important the parents are to kids making good decisions. i have good friend that is a youth pastor and the way he would put it is that you can only reinforce what is already being taught at home. so if the parents aren’t modeling what you are teaching the chances of it sticking is slim no matter how theologically sound they are. and when you take in to account a teenagers emotional and social maturity, i think there are a lot of things you cant put in the same sentence with teenager.
but we can pray for the exception .
November 12th, 2004 at 11:45 am
So what changes did you make when you stopped ignoring the impact parents have on how kids think about sexuality?
April 7th, 2005 at 6:16 am
There is wonderful ministry called No Greater Joy, they sell a book called “Holy Sex” written by Michael Pearl. You can get it at his website, nogreaterjoy.org.