Abstinence Education
What should parents, educators and
church leaders teach children about sex? Sixty years ago—at least, where I grew
up—the question would not have been so controversial or appropriate as it is today.
The people of my home community may not have been completely agreed on the
topic, but most of them would not have taken the position that many liberal
politicians, educators and preachers take today. They may not have taught their
children God's view of human sexuality—although many parents, preachers
and teachers did—but they would not have advocated letting children grow up with
the moral values of barnyard animals. In addition, most of the parents I knew
exemplified the kind of moral values they wanted their children to adopt. Does that mean
that all of my associates were always sexually pure? I am convinced that most
of them were, but not all of them. But not one member of my high school
graduating class had a baby out of wedlock. The vast majority of them have had good
marriages and families. Most of them after more than a half-century are still
married to their original partners. How many of today's graduating classes will
be able to say that fifty years from now? How many of them will be able to say that five years from
now?
You cannot be unaware of the conflict in our nation over
teaching sexual abstinence to our young people. Liberal educators, politicians,
theologians and the ridiculous American Civil Liberties Union have joined
together to oppose the teaching of abstinence. Some of the opponents argue
that it is a matter of separation of church and state. Are they affirming that teaching
any kind of moral values is a violation of the separation of church and state? But
there are some rational voices, even in the media, that oppose teaching
abstinence-plus-contraception. Recently Saritha Prabhu, a Clarksville,
Tennessee, columnist for The Tennessean, wrote an excellent
article with the title, "Abstinence by far and away is the answer"
(Monday, December 13, 2004). She asks,
"Should we teach our teens to abstain from sexual relations until
marriage, or should we teach them abstinence but, presuming that they'll do it
anyway, teach them safety measures" (p. 11-A)?
There is one aspect of teaching about
sex or about any other topic we must not overlook. As I write this transcript, I have
on my desk Desmond Morris's book, The Naked Ape (New York: Dell
Publishing Co., Inc., 1967). When I bought my copy of that book in 1979, it had
already gone through nineteen printings. Desmond Morris writes: "I am a
zoologist and the naked ape is an animal" (p. 9). The Saturday
Review wrote of Morris's book: "A startlingly novel idea, brilliantly executed.... To
read Desmond Morris on the sex habits
of the naked ape is disconcerting, to say the least." The Saturday
Review describes Morris's book as "enlightening, entertaining,
disturbing, discomforting, ego-shrinking" (Back cover). In case you are
wondering who the naked ape is, it
is every human being, including you and me.
If we are nothing more than naked apes—as
Desmond Morris and most other evolutionists believe—what would be the point in
discussing teaching sexual abstinence to our young people? I grew up on a farm where
we raised hogs, goats, horses and cattle. I do not recall my father's bringing
in an expert on animal behavior to conduct sessions on sex among the animals.
We know that animals do what comes naturally. It would be silly to try to teach
them moral values or sexual techniques. Is that really all we are—just animals? If we
are just animals—whether apes or some other—why should we bother about teaching
abstinence or any other moral value? In fact, I challenge any evolutionist to
give one valid reason for doing anything or refraining from doing anything. I have read
Antony Flew's book, Evolutionary Ethics (New York: Macmillan,
1967). Even though Dr. Flew was a prominent philosopher, his book makes
absolutely no sense—either logical or moral.
We do not speak of animals committing sin or doing
wrong. However, evolutionists cannot refrain from using moral language of human
conduct. Do evolutionists believe the Holocaust was immoral? Do they believe it is
morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or religion or social status?
Would they approve of abusing children or others just for fun? If they believe
any of these activities are evil, they must have some standard for making that
judgment. What is the standard they use? Dr. Will Durant, the distinguished
historian of philosophy and a humanist, understood the difficulty of evolutionists'
developing ethical values. In the book, Humanist Ethics (Buffalo: Prometheus
Books, 1980), edited by Dr. Morris Storer of the University of Florida, Dr.
Durant made this very wise observation: "We (meaning humanists) shall find
it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral
restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and
fears" (p. 8). Humanists will find it impossible to develop a
"natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social
order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears."
Do you know what the supporters of
teaching abstinence-plus-contraception really believe? They argue that teens are
going to engage in sex outside of marriage regardless of what they are taught.
So we must make sure they are protected from sexually transmitted diseases and
from out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Is that really the kind of children and young
people we are rearing in our nation? Can they not be taught the dangers of engaging
in sex outside the marriage bond? If they cannot be taught moral values, we are
in for some rough sledding in the years ahead. Let us think for a few
minutes on the implications of this situation.
Do you teach your children not to
smoke, not to drink beverage alcohol and not to abuse other drugs? Suppose we
approach these problems as many liberals want to approach sex education? Should
we teach our children: "I prefer that you do not smoke or drink or
abuse other drugs. But I know you are going to do anyway. So be careful not to smoke
too much, not to drive under the influence of alcohol and not use drugs that will
impair your judgment?" Would you think we are wise in leading our children in the
right direction if we used that approach to tobacco, alcohol and other drugs?
Most Americans—even secular
humanists—believe stealing is wrong, at least, under most circumstances. Why do we
not tell our children and young people: "We know you are going to steal,
but just make sure you do not get caught?" That would make as much sense
as telling young people they should not engage in sex outside marriage, but if
they are going to do it any way, they should make sure they are adequately protected.
What kind of nation have we become when we fail to give children and young
people the information they need to lead fulfilled lives? As parents, preachers
and teachers, we are derelict in our duty when we fail to teach and exemplify the
principles our young people must know and observe.
Who should teach our young people about sex?
Many American schools are intruding on the territory that belongs to parents
alone. Schools have no right to provide sex education for children. There are
several reasons for making that statement. Tragically, many American
educators have espoused situation ethics. They do not believe there are any
absolutes. If there are no absolutes, it is not absolutely wrong to tell young
people they can engage in sex outside marriage if they are careful and protect
themselves. If the public schools in your community are providing sex education, you should
investigate to learn what is being taught. Some modern schoolteachers have
the moral values of barnyard animals. Is that the kind of person you want teaching
your children about a topic that has such influence in their lives?
Parents should also make sure what is being
taught in Sunday school classes. You would think offhand that Bible teachers
would actually teach what the Bible does on such a vital topic. There have been cases
where churches were actually showing pornographic movies to their young people's
classes. You should also make sure of the moral values of the teachers of
children's classes. If a man is a known
womanizer, he is not the teacher your children need. How can we teach the whole
counsel of God without teaching what the Bible says about sex? But it must be done
with discretion.
Tragically, what many of our young people
learn about sex they learn from popular songs, from television programs and
from the movies. Have you noticed how some of the songs actually teach or at least
imply that a man is not really a man until he has engaged in sex? One country song says,
"This bed of Rose's that I lie on, where I was taught to be a
man." Engaging in sex outside the marriage bond does not make a man a real man. It makes him a thief and a
reprobate. He is taking what no woman has a moral right to give and he has no
moral right to take. It is not unusual for a man to tell a woman: "If you
really love me, prove it by having sex with me." I believe it was Dr. James Dobson who said that was
comparable to telling a woman to prove her love by sticking her head in a fire.
The Soap Operas on television promote
sex outside marriage. I am told (since I never watch Soap Operas) that almost never
are husbands and wives shown as being intimate. It is almost always unmarried
people and in many cases persons who have met at least fifteen minutes (or is it
fifteen seconds?) before they engage in sex. What message are the
songs, television programs and movies sending our children and young people? Will
what they learn from those sources prepare them for lasting and happy marriages? The
people who own radio and television stations and movie theaters are
responsible before God and before good people for the deterioration of morals in America—not
that it makes any difference to them so long as they make money. They ought to
be ashamed of themselves for corrupting the youth—and adults—of America.
If we ought to teach young people
about sex, what should be the message we deliver to them? Churches have been accused
of presenting only the negative aspects of sex. Obviously we have to teach all
the Bible says about sex, but we must not dwell on the negative side all the
time. We must teach that God made us male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). We
must also teach that God invented sex for the joy and fulfillment of husbands
and wives in the marital relationship. The book of Proverbs stresses the beauty
of the sexual relationship in marriage. How can Christians overlook these
stirring words? "Drink waters out of your own cistern, and running waters
out of your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad and streams of
water in the streets? Let them be only your own, and not a stranger's with
you. Let your fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her
be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
and be ravished with her love. And why will you, my son, be ravished with a
strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? For the ways of man are before the
eyes of the Lord, and he ponders all his goings" (Prov. 5:15-21).
Several comments on this passage are
in order. Please pay special attention to the divine writers' emphasis on the
exclusiveness of the sexual relationship. "Drink waters out of your
own fountain, and running waters out of your own well....Let them be only your own,
and not a stranger's with you." God intended for husbands and wives to
fully enjoy their intimate time together. "Rejoice with the wife of your youth....Be ravished
with her love." The word "ravished" means intoxicated, exhilarated,
infatuated or captivated. Husbands and wives should find fulfillment in their
married partners. If they cultivate their intimate relationship, they will find
joy and satisfaction, as God intended. Is that the message the entertainment
media give to our young people? Do they not show how men and women find greater
excitement and fulfillment outside the bonds of holy matrimony?
The Bible could not be plainer in its
condemnation of sex outside marriage. The New Testament uses the word pornos (translated
either "fornicator" or "whoremonger") ten times. The word pome
(translated "harlot" or "whore") appears twelve times
in the Greek New Testament. The New Testament uses the word porneia (always
translated "fornication") twenty-six times and the verb proneuo
(to commit fornication) eight times. Before we look at some of the times these
words appear in the sacred text, it is in order to define the word
"fornication." Many preachers define "adultery" as
extramarital sex and "fornication" as premarital sex. The scriptures
simply do not sustain that approach. The word "fornication" (porneia
in the Greek) comes from the Greek pornos or porne meaning
a prostitute. The word "fornication means any and every form of sexual
immorality.
In our Lord's discussion of marriage,
divorce and remarriage, he used the word "fornication" to describe
extramarital sex (Mt. 19:9). The church at Corinth had in its fellowship a man
who was guilty of incest. Paul castigated the Corinthian Christians for their
indifference toward sin. "It is commonly reported that there is
fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so named among the Gentiles,
that a man should have his father's wife" (1 Cor. 5:1). Paul used the word
"fornication" of premarital sex. Please listen. "Now concerning the
things whereof you wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:1-2). Jude employs the word of homosexual
sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and
the cities about them, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire" (Jude 7). Incidentally, the word "fornication" in this
verse is an intensified form of the word "fornication." The New
American Standard Bible renders the word "gross immorality. I would
translate the Greek "perverted fornication."
Parents and preachers often warn young
people about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. When we realize that
more than twenty-five million of America's young people have genital herpes—an
incurable disease—and millions more are afflicted with syphilis, gonorrhea, Chlamydia
and other venereal diseases, it is time we inform young people of the
physical and emotional dangers of illicit sex. And AIDS is a sure killer. But the
Bible generally does not condemn sexual
immorality because of the physical or emotional scars it leaves.
We parents and preachers also warn of
the dangers of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. That, too, is a legitimate approach to
teaching our children about sex. One million girls become pregnant out-of-wedlock
every year—one million. Four hundred thousand of those girls abort their babies. Will
the girls who abort their babies suffer from emotional scars for the rest of
their lives? But again, this is not the approach to sexual behavior the Bible
writers use in warning of the dangers of sex outside the marriage bond
What do inspired writers of the Bible
teach about sex outside the marriage bond? Paul lists fornication among the lusts
of the flesh and then says, "They who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). In other words, the unrepentant
fornicator is going to hell. Paul warned the Ephesian Christians: "But fornication, and all
uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becomes saints.
For this you know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man,
who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Eph. 5:3,
5). Paul demanded of the Corinthians: "Flee fornication" (1 Cor.
6:18). The word "flee" is a present imperative. That means to make a
habit of fleeing.
Paul asked the Corinthians, many of whom had been grossly
immoral: "What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? For
you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit,
which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Even if you are not a Christian, these
verses ought to make an impression you. You are a creature of God almighty. You
should take care of your body and not destroy it and your spirit on sexual
immorality. You only have one body to last you to the end of your life. Take
care of it and avoid any activity that will shorten your time with your family.
I close with these very troubling words. "But the
fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns
with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).
Winford Claiborne
The International Gospel Hour
P.O. Box 118
Fayetteville, TN 37334