Tag Archives: sexual revolution

The War on Sex

I’m not sure if you have noticed or not, but the issue of sex and all that goes with it has been making the news lately. In fact, it has been making news now for a few decades and it continue to grow, taking up more and more space and is becoming more and more heated. Some of the more recent news comes as the Vice President’s wife Karen Pence has taken a job at a Christian school teaching art part-time. Being a genuine Christian school, they take a firm stance on sex and sexuality. While the headlines make it all about homosexuality, the school actually takes a stance against all forms of sexual activity outside the bounds of one man to one woman marriage. Thus no pre-marital sex, no extra-marital sex, no pornography usage, no homosexuality, and the list goes on.

I’m not sure if those who are outraged are outraged that Karen Pence who claims to be a born-again Christian is living by her convictions or if they are outraged that anyone would dare have such convictions in the first place. That’s what this article seeks to address, how someone could have such convictions and why someone in this day and age would actually seek to publicly live by those convictions. To understand this reasoning, one must begin with the theology of sex. While I won’t have time to go through every biblical reference to sex, my hope is to at least give a framework toward a biblical theology of sex and sexuality.

  1. Sex is divinely given and enjoyable. It was God who created male and female, and his first command to them was, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,” (Genesis 1:28). Three major points: 1) God created man and woman. He gave them each their respective body parts that not only made sexual union possible, but enjoyable. He is the one who put sensitive nerve-endings on those body parts. He is the one who put the testosterone and estrogen and dopamine chemicals into our systems. It was not by accident, but by design. 2) God expected man and woman–commanded man and woman–to have lots of babies, of course the only way to make that happen is to have lots of sex. Sex is commanded (at least in the confines of one man and one woman in marriage). 3) While not a popular concept today, sex and children are linked. Until recent history (about 100 years) sex and children were linked together. Today, with contraception and nearly on-demand abortion, such is not the case. But from a biblical perspective they are.
  2. Sex was designed to be without shame. When God brought Eve to Adam, we are told, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not shamed,” (Genesis 2:25). Sin changed all of that. Once Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s commands, “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths,” (Genesis 3:7). Notice, only loincloths. They didn’t cover their upper bodies, but only their sexual organs. There was now a separation, a distrust, a shame between husband and wife. From this point forward, sex was altered. Sex, in some way, had fallen when Adam and Eve fell.
  3. When sex fell, it began to be used wrongly. This would include forced sex. “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw the daughters of man were attractive and took as their wives any they chose,” (Genesis 6:1). Many would say that the sons of God here are fallen angels, thus taking by force the daughters of man as wives. It would include homosexuality and rape. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lord, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them,'” (Genesis 19:4-5). Lot going out to convince them not to commit such an act, offered the alternative: “Let me bring [my virgin daughters] out to you, and do to them as you please,” (Genesis 19:8). There was incest. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father,” (Genesis 19:32). There is all the fun without any responsibility. Without going to much detail, Onan was taking his dead brother’s wife as his own so she could have a son by him. “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother,” (Genesis 38:9). This is often used by some to speak against masturbation, but in reality, it is having the perks of sex without the responsibility of children. That could include masturbation, but not limited to it. It could simply be having “friends with benefits,” one-night stands, etc.  It includes prostitution and weaponizing sex. Tamar wrapped herself in garments to look like a prostitute, “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. He turned to her at the roadside and said, ‘Come, let me come in to you,’ for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law,” (Genesis 38:15-16). Later, he found out that she was pregnant and angry because it would seem that she had extra-marital sex. When he sent word, she used his own staff and signet cord to frame him. Adultery would be included. “And after a time [Joseph’s] master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, ‘Lie with me,'” (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused.  All of this is found in the first book of the Bible!!
  4. Laws were made to protect against the fallen-nature of sex. By the time the Israelites got out of Egypt, they had probably seen or heard about all the various sexual practices. Canaan was known for its licentiousness. God intended Israel to be a standard-bearer. They were to be distinct, different than the cultures around them. Thus he set up laws. Without going into every one of these laws, suffice it to say that they dealt with all the practices we see in Genesis and also included bestiality (see Leviticus 18).
  5. Sex is exciting. By the time one gets to the Proverbs one has a pretty good understanding about all the wrongs of sex, but not all the rights and excitement of it. Enter the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon). Here is a poetic expression of what sex is really to be like in marriage. It is fun, exciting, complicated, and enjoyable. There’s honeymoon sex, steamy sex, and even make-up sex right there in one book of the Bible. Christians don’t have a bad view of sex (at least they ought not to); we simply have an elevated view of sex. We want all that it was meant to be, not just what we can eek out.
  6. There is an emphasis on the wrongness of homosexuality, but there is a reason for it. 1) It goes against creation. God created man and woman, one man and one woman. Anything (divorce, extra-marital sex, polygamy, or homosexuality) goes against the created order. 2) Homosexuality actually goes completely in the opposite direction of the created order. While the other sexual sins deviate from the created order and are wrong, homosexuality does a complete U-turn from it (or transgenderism, lesbianism, etc.). This was Paul’s point in Romans: “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men,” (Romans 1:26-27). For years the homosexual movement has been crying with all its might that this is not their choice; they were born this way. Lately, the transgender and fluid-gender movement has cried that they can be whomever they want to be; thus a choice. This has caused great consternation to their counterparts. Here Paul is speaking of not the choice of feelings, but the choice of actions.
  7. All Christians are called to self-restraint. Part of the teachings of the Bible are that we are to have self-control. It is, in fact, a fruit of the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23). Paul wrote to Timothy that God gave us not a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control. The pastor is to be a man of self-control. Older men are to be self-controlled. Women are to be self-controlled. This self-control is not only in the area of sex, but in all areas of life, yet it does include sex. Hence, there is the prohibition on pre-marital sex, adultery, bestiality, etc. We are to restrain our inclinations, not give in to them. Just as we see a piece of jewelry that we like, but refrain from taking it, so we are to refrain from taking the man or woman simply because we want them.

That being said. . .God has called Christians to a higher standard. As we’ve seen, Christians are the outsiders when it comes to sex. We are in the minority. The fact that this war is recent for us is an anomaly. We are feeling invaded by the sexual revolution, when in reality, Christians are aliens in a world that has been in a sexual revolution since the fall. This was the society with which Corinth, Laodicea, Ephesus, Rome, and just about every other church within Scripture dealt. Christians are meant to be the kooks; we are supposed to look strange to people. We are supposed to believe weird things (let’s not forget that Christians were called atheists until the 3rd century; and that they accused us of cannibalism as well).  But let us also remember that while we may feel like society is crumbling around us (and maybe it is), the society is simply being themselves. This is nothing new (everything we see today, happened in Genesis). We are to love the people. We are to pray for them, but we are not to cast them away.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-12).

Why purge the evil person from among us? Because 1) his sin will catch on like yeast to dough or like fire in California, 2) the church is to be an example of holiness, separation and purity (all types of purity). This is what Karen Pence is seeking to do. She believes the Bible’s doctrine on sexuality, and seeks to live by it (as all Christians are called to do). It ought not shock anyone that she is sticking to her convictions, but in case those people misunderstood the convictions she had, I hopefully have given at least a foundation to them.

I’d love to hear your feedback. Whether you agree or not. This is a hot-button issue, so I simply ask for civility and decency. If I find your comments to be the opposite (even if they’re in agreement with me), I will delete them. If they are civil and decent, even if they oppose my argument, they will remain up.

All Scripture is taken from the ESV published by Crossway Books.

A Modern Ireland and Abortion

Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Prime Minister, spoke the other day about the landslide victory that repealed the Eighth Amendment to Ireland’s Constitution, which made abortion illegal (except in cases involving the health of the mother). It reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”  On the side of the repeal, the Prime Minister said, “The people have said that we want a modern constitution for a modern country, that we trust women and we respect them to make the right decision and the right choices about their health care.”  A modern constitution for a modern country. Modern.  If we were speaking of modern in its truest form, then Ireland was already more modern than most westernized nations.  They saw the unborn as a child.  Modern technology backs this claim up.  But it isn’t being used in its truest form. In this case, “modern” is a synonym for “progressive,” in the political sense.  I’m for progress, but often progress in the political sense is more of a regress.  Much of what is in this blog is from a previous blog I wrote on February 3 of last year, with some updated editions/editing.  You can read it in its entirety here.

This is a blog that is simply pointing out that what we now see or call progressive is anything but.  It is in fact regressive.  I see this in life, in sex, and in individuality.The regression of life comes in many forms.  But it all goes back to those political hot words: Culture of Death.  If we were to stop and think about how progressives treat life, it tends to look awfully strange.  It certainly would abhor progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, though perhaps not so much his cousin, FDR.  Think for a moment about the history of the world.  One would typically consider the killing of a child to be barbaric.  It would be considered uncivilized, except it happened in civilized society.  It didn’t happen as much in the form of abortion as in infanticide (which I would not distinguish between the two, except simply on being in utero while the other is out of the womb).  Often in ancient days baby girls were put out with the trash or upon a high wall to die of exposure.  Why?  Simple: she was a girl and girls weren’t as “valuable” as boys.  It was sex selection.

It was eugenics in its primitive state.  It was horrific.  Little babies would die from the cold or from being pecked alive by birds or any numerous ways.  Beyond that though, as horrible as that is, the very thought of setting a baby out to die of exposure is simply beyond the pale.One does not have to go back as far as ancient Rome to find similar practices.  One only needs go back to the World War II era when nearly every nation was dabbling in eugenics, none quite so much as the Third Reich.  Any person considered to be unfit was to be wiped off the planet.  Those with genetic disorders, handicaps, or simply considered an unfit race was to be disposed.  Does any humane person believe that this is the way to go?  Obviously so.  Since developing the ability to detect Down’s Syndrome in the womb, doctors are encouraging parents to abort the child.  While the ultrasound has saved millions of lives, it has also brought us the knowledge of what sex the baby is and so brought in utero sex selective abortions.  Technically, that is illegal in the US, but since there aren’t many laws limiting why an abortion can take place, one only needs to keep their mouth shut as to that, or any other main reason.At the same time there is the euthanasia phenomena going on.  Pardon me, the doctor assisted suicide phenomena.  People are not simply some doe that got hit by a car and need to be put out of their misery.

It used to be thought that humans were the highest created being and that there was something special about them.  No longer.  Progressive thought (or should I say regressive thought) says that humans are no better than an animal.  They need to be put down like the mangy dog at the shelter.  Actually, save the dog, but put the sick human to sleep.  When a person is old or infirmed, the thought goes to euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. How is abortion or euthanasia a progressive idea?  It seems so regressive.  It is taking us to a time of baseness where we live according to our baser selves.  To the progressive killing in war is savage but killing in womb is salvific; killing an intruder is unjust, but killing the infirmed and old is righteous.

Much of the progressive/regressive culture wanting abortion without limits is also moving for a more sexual culture.  Sex should be unrestrictive (except where it needs to be restricted–rape and incest, etc., which I’ll get to momentarily).  Of course, how can sex be unrestricted if babies get in the way?  One cannot progress far enough sexually until one progresses far enough abortionally.

Once again though, in this sexual culture, we are encouraged to go back to our baser selves.  Self-control used to be a good thing.  To control my body was seen by most civilized people to be laudable, but now it’s laughable.  Progressives teach that it is impossible to teach abstinence in school because they will find a way to have sex anyway.  Shouldn’t we just give them condoms and teach them how to have “safe-sex”? Is this serious thinking?  Is this progressive thought or regressive thought?  Somehow this argument holds water for the progressive for the high schooler (and middle-schooler), but somehow it no longer holds water for the rapist.  This is where the restriction comes in.  The progressive wants his cake and to eat it too.  That simply can’t happen.  One cannot tell a person as they grow up that they don’t need self-control, and then suddenly they have to learn it.  One can’t teach regressive thought of giving in to base desires and then expect that person to honor and respect others and treat them with dignity.

And yes, this is all with the idea of consent.  The two parties must consent, right?  Both parties must consent to giving into baseness.  They both must agree to show no self-control.  Isn’t a lack of self-control barbaric.  A person who cannot tell himself no would be considered a cave-man or barbarian in ages past.  So then, isn’t progressive thought that says that these teens can’t control themselves more regressive than progressive?

But these two thoughts–life and sex–actually come under the big umbrella of individuality.  Progressives want people to think in terms of individual while proclaiming the good of society.  This doesn’t really work.  What might seem okay for an individual would not be good for society as a whole.  For example if a person stole bread because he was hungry, it does him good.  However, it is not good if there is a society of thieves.  Society breaks down.  Progressives are teaching individualism and individuality and parading it around as universalism.

This is why abortion and euthanasia is so prevalent.  The person getting the abortion is thinking about self.  Even those who say that they don’t want to raise a baby in poverty are not thinking so much of the child (there is foster and adoption options).  They are thinking of self.  Those who choose (or encourage) euthanasia are more focused on self.  Of course, no one wants to suffer and no one wants to see a loved one suffer.  But what we should note is that for the one receiving doctor assisted suicide the “I” vocabulary.  I don’t want to suffer.  I don’t want the pain.  I don’t want. . .  For the family of those suffering there is also the “I” vocabulary.  I can’t stand to see them in pain. I can’t watch them go through such a thing.  It is still about I–the individual.

So it is with sex.  I want to have sex with this person so I will have sex with this person (as long as that person consents).  I want multiple partners in my life. I want multiple partners at one time.  I want to experience this type of sex, etc.  It is still about the individual.

What is good for the individual is not always good for society (not that any of this is god for the individual either).  It used to be a virtuous thing to give up individuality and self for the good of others.  Selfishness (individualism) used to be considered a bad thing, a base thing.  Yet today, progressives have taught us that selfishness is good and the good of others is bad (if it impedes with selfishness).  That doesn’t sound progressive to me.  It sounds rather. . .regressive.

All this goes back to my first thought: what we now see or call progressive is anything but.  It is in fact regressive.  This isn’t modern, Prime Minister Varadkar; it’s babaric.

I am sure there are many out there who do not agree with me, and if you are one, you are free to comment.  I simply ask that you do so in a respectful manner.  If you like this post and are in agreement with it, you are more than welcome to share it.