Since I can’t be at church today, I figured I’d write about The Church. Anyone is welcome to read and chime in, but since I’m talking about family business, expect a bit of God-bothering that I wouldn’t include in a secular post. Sam Davidson’s post on the Church’s lack of appreciation for worldly accomplishments is serving as the catalyst for my thinking. In that post, Sam asserts that
when the church decries something simply because to embrace it would require a change of heart, it is not assuming its God-given role to be a positive force of change in the world. And that’s called heresy.
Of course, in the list of items for which Sam would like to see the Church relent on her position are things like ‘abstinence-only education’. And this is why I’m a Christian Libertarian, gang. This is it. Right here.
Because I firmly believe that we in the Church cannot use the law to force our ecclesiastical views on the rest of you. But I also believe that I don’t want secular views diluting the power of Christ’s message to the church. In the church we teach abstinence because we believe that is how the Bible instructs us to live. We know abstinence is difficult. We’re human. We have libidos too. But we teach abstinence to our children because we are to ‘bring them up in the way [they] should go’, and we believe circumspect sexuality is part of that. I don’t think we need to teach ab/o in the school systems because those kids are not all our kids and their religious education is not the role of the school. Abstinence-only is a religious position held for religious reasons.
In the Bible we are told that the Church is the role-model for marriage. Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. Just as the church has only one God and Christ has only one Church, Christians are to have only one sexual partner. Yes, I know it doesn’t always work that way. But that is the goal to which we aspire when we take up our crosses daily.
I know we aren’t the cool kids here. I know that the hip granola thing to do is to be all “Condoms For Everybody! Whee!” and cluck tongues at those backward Jesus-freaks at the soda fountain. I know that so many in the church would rather be embraced by a secular world full of fellow-feeling than to walk the hard road on this.
But we are called to be holy. In case you weren’t aware, “Holy” means set apart. I’ll help you teach birth control methods in secular society. But don’t expect my Church to slough off our definitive core of beliefs just to fit in with the withering grass and fading flowers of this world.
The rest of my comments on Sam’s treatise can be found here.
If it were merely a religious position held for religious reasons, embraced by the religious and applicable to only those who subscribe to the dogma and fellowship of a particular religion — that is, really “set apart” — then Amen, sister. However, a certain brand of evangelical Christians, following what they believe is their God-given calling to transform the world, are unapologetically using law to accomplish this transformation. In the instance cited, they have effectively enshrined their particular religious beliefs (which not all Christians agree with) into state policy. By imposing their religious beliefs upon me and mine, they have made their faith a civil matter of concern to me. It’s unfortunate, but the secular pressure will persist and should be expected as long as churches actively intervene to shape secular politics.
By imposing their religious beliefs upon me and mine, they have made their faith a civil matter of concern to me. It’s unfortunate, but the secular pressure will persist and should be expected as long as churches actively intervene to shape secular politics.
This is exactly why I am so stubborn about my libertarianism, much to my parents’ and brother’s chagrin. I think politicking matters of faith profanes the Church and is the very definition of taking the Lord’s name in vain.
I’m deadly serious about that.
We have corrupted our holiness by trying to make it worldly.
Do you think that behind the faith based rhetoric of abstinence only sex education is the (faulty) belief that if you teach kids about sex that that will make them want to have sex?
faith based rhetoric of abstinence only sex education is the (faulty) belief that if you teach kids about sex that that will make them want to have sex?
I don’t know if I would call it ‘faith-based rhetoric’ as much as I would say ‘dogma’. Because when we (the church) bring our ab/o philosophy into the mainstream it becomes a dogmatic dictate wholly removed from the faith.
BUT…yes, I do think that’s a part of it. Some people see sex education for teenagers as waving a red flag in front of a bull. I personally see it as building a fenced-in pasture so the bull is contained. Because teenage libido is a goring bull whether anyone wants to admit that or not.
Where I have a problem with public sex education is in the methodology. “Sex Education” has become a broad (ha!) term that encompasses a whole lot. I’m perfectly fine with
I DO have a problem with the type of sex-ed material that is overtly salicious. I’ve read through a few sex-ed curriculae and more than a few Young Adult fiction books which do seem designed to ‘feed the beast’ as it were. I think that’s irresponsible.
For instance, one of the curriculae I reviewed a few years ago had a section for a classroom discussion about the ‘things that turn you on’. Frankly I think locking a bunch of kids in a room and having them talk about their erotic cofactors is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. I know it was designed to drive home a lesson about how everyone is slightly different and we should embrace our differences blah blah, but come the frak on, people! It’s a high school classroom, not a 900 number chat-line.
I’m not sure I agree that abstinence-only is strictly a religious position held for religious reasons. Abstinence educators in the public schools can’t even go into the religious reasons for abstaining…but there are plenty of non-faith-based reasons to keep your pants on. The top ones emphasized–pregnancy risk, STDs (no protection is foolproof for either one, of course), and emotional consequences–aren’t necessarily related to one’s religious beliefs. For me, spiritual beliefs were the number one motivation, as well as enabling factor, to remain abstinent until marriage–but there are other reasons, too.
Do you think that behind the faith based rhetoric of abstinence only sex education is the (faulty) belief that if you teach kids about sex that that will make them want to have sex?
I don’t necessarily think so. I think it’s a desire not to send mixed messages. We don’t tell kids not to play in traffic, but then teach them how to dodge cars “just in case they do it anyway.” We don’t teach kids not to do drugs, but then instruct them in safeR methods for shooting up. So the abstinence-only mindset is that if you’re telling kids, “don’t have sex until you’re married,” but then you give them all sorts of instruction on how to protect themselves should they choose to defy your advice, it’s a really mixed message.
We don’t tell kids not to play in traffic, but then teach them how to dodge cars “just in case they do it anyway.” We don’t teach kids not to do drugs, but then instruct them in safeR methods for shooting up.
The only place where these analogies fall down is that playing in traffic and ingesting foreign chemicals for mood alteration is not a fundamental human drive.
Sex is more like eating. We don’t tell kids to not eat until they’re old enough to understand what they’re eating. Instead we tell them how to eat right.
I know that it was really difficult for me to wait and I couldn’t have done it without the spiritual reasons for a driver, and without the support of my faith.
I think pushing abstinence-only education without a faith-based underpinning is a gross underestimation of the difficulty of abstinence.
I do think that abstinence should be stressed as the best option for the reasons you mentioned–disease, pregnancy, emotional issues–but I really don’t know that it’s realistic to expect people living outside of our socioreligious groups to accept our norms and conform to them while being denied our support structures.
Kat, you make some excellent points–ones I can’t really argue with.
I wonder, though, if there’s a balance between “it’s not realistic to expect people to do this” and “people will live up to or down to the expectations we set for them”??
I do completely hear you on this:
I know that it was really difficult for me to wait and I couldn’t have done it without the spiritual reasons for a driver, and without the support of my faith.
“However, a certain brand of evangelical Christians, following what they believe is their God-given calling to transform the world, are unapologetically using law to accomplish this transformation.”
In my view, unless we have some method of school choice, someone will always inflict their values on other people.
[…] No Sex Please, We’re The Church […]