Another cruddy Christian “Have We Made an Idol Out of Sexual Purity?” editorial (this time, from Relevant magazine) – And An Analogy For Married Christians Who Don’t Get It
The analogy is way, way down the page. I might put it in a separate post in the future.
First, a word about terminology. This is a somewhat minor point I make in passing, but it’s recurrent on various Christian blogs I visit, it drives me nuts, so I wanted to point it out.
Other Christians are very confused about the phrase “sexual purity.” They want to argue that “sexual purity” is not the same thing as “virginity,” but in articles like this one I link to below, they go on to equate “sexual purity” to virginity themselves.
The lady who wrote the following insists that sexual purity is not the same thing as virginity, or should not be thought of as such, but then says that you are not damaged goods, or your sexual purity is not lost, over a single act (ie, having sex, ie, which is defined as, or understood as, losing your virginity prior to marriage).
So… authors like this one argues ( the symbol != is computer coding / scripting language for “is not equal to”),
sexual purity != virginity
sexual purity = virginity
Christian authors who are trying to say that virginity is not all that important in the end scheme of things cannot themselves even stay consistent on the point of whether or not to consider
virginity = sexual purity (or as a sub-set of).
They flip flop on this point a lot. If you don’t believe that sexual purity = virginity, why bother lovingly patting the heads of fornicators to reassure them that losing one’s virginity before marriage is nothing to feel ashamed about?
Why not just write a big old editorial denying that sexual purity is the same thing as staying a virgin until marriage, or why not try to argue that the Bible does not prohibit pre-marital boinking?
The link to the odious editorial by a Christian publication (I have additional comments below the long excerpt):
(Link): Have We Made an Idol Out of Sexual Purity? Why purity is so much more than virginity. BY DEBRA K FILETA
If you grew up in church, you’ve likely heard one of these horrific analogies somewhere along the way:
Your sexual purity, once it’s given away is like…
“Tape that’s lost it’s stickiness.”
“Paper that’s been torn.”
“Gum that’s been chewed.”
“A gift that’s been unwrapped.”
While I get the mentality behind these messages, my problem with these analogies, and in fact, this entire discussion, is that it presents “purity” as a one-dimensional physical act.
First you have it, then you don’t. Vanished. Gone. Over. Done with. In a blink of an eye, the prospect of being “pure” and holy has been wiped away.
This mentality is so dangerous because it fools us into believing that our entire worth as believers and as “eligible” bachelors/bachelorettes is wrapped up on this one, single part of who we are.
Please don’t misunderstand, I believe it is important to honor God with our bodies, but since when did our holiness have anything to do with who we are, instead of everything to do with who Christ is?
— end article excerpts—
I left a few comments on that page, including:
No, Christians have not made an idol out of sexual purity, not even when using analogies about chewed up gum and so forth. I’m over 40 years of age, still a virgin, because I was waiting until marriage to have sex but am still single.
In the past several years, Christians (seemingly influenced by secular feminists and “slut shaming” rhetoric) have been criticizing virginity, virgins, and celibacy and mocking these concepts and saying they are unimportant.
We’ve now arrived at a situation where Christians (and Non Christians) demand and expect everyone to respect all forms of sexual behavior and sexual expression EXCEPT FOR virginity and celibacy.
Adult singleness is also under attack, from everyone from Al Mohler (who slams singleness in his interviews) to guys like pastor Mark Driscoll who blogs the unbiblical view that single people cannot and should not serve as preachers.
Driscoll also wrongly teaches in one of his blog posts that older, adult celibate adults lack sex drives because God supposedly, magically removed their sex drive (this is false; single adults over 30 still experience sexual desire).
Further, Driscoll holds the unbiblical, wacko strange view that if a person is still single over 30, that God has destined them for singleness, and at that, to martyr them off for spreading the Gospel in some deep jungle, in some remote nation. None of this is supported in the Bible.
Christians are attacking singleness, virginity, and celibacy; they are most certainly NOT making an idol out of any of these things, and I wish Christian bloggers, magazines, and authors would stop arguing otherwise.
Continue reading “Another cruddy Christian “Have We Made an Idol Out of Sexual Purity?” editorial (this time, from Relevant magazine) – And An Analogy For Married Christians Who Don’t Get It”