Sex and the single Christian
Here is an able re-statement by Joe Carter of First Things of what the genuine- and biblical- Christian sexual ethic has to say to the unmarried.
It should be said that there probably was never a time in American history- and maybe in human history- in which most people did not engage in pre-marital sex. But if Christianity's- and Western society's- traditional formal committment to pre-marital chastity is hypocritical, it has been truly said that hypocricy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. If most people haven't actually practiced pre-marital abstinence down through the years, it becomes all the more interesting that its mores have paid such elaborate lip service to it.
The other day I was in my favorite English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh pub here in Des Moines (well, OK- the only pub in Des Moines which consciously caters to folk whose forebears come from everywhere in the British Isles, but still one worth noting; the Royal Mile received an award from Esquire magazine in 2007 as one of the Best Bars in America). I got a chuckle from the coaster, which bore the illustrated legend, "WARNING: Beer Goggles Can Cause You To See Storks." The out-of-focus stork on the coaster, of course, was carrying a baby. "Accidents," as the saying goes, "cause people."
Nearly 40% of American births are now out of wedlock. The consequences for these children- and usually for their mothers- of such births tend to be drastic: a life of poverty, for starters, along with less tthan adequate health care and in most senses a beginning in life somewhere behind what constitutes the starting line for the rest of us. The consequences of divorce for kids have not stopped us from divorcing at unprecidented rates; though the oft-cited statistic that half of American marriages end in divorce may not be accurate (the statistic is arrived at by comparing the number of marriages which begin each year with the number that end in divorce- two sets with comparatively few members in common, and bearing no statistically necessary relationship to each other) there can be little doubt that one of the reasons is an almost total loss of the concept that we have responsibilities when it comes to maintaining or abandoning a marriage which have to do with anyone but ourselves. And, hey- if you happen to get pregnant as the result of pre-marital hanky-panky, you can always off the kid. The Supreme Court says that it's OK, after all- and one of the major American poltical parties is virtually dedicated to the proposition that being able to do so is a human right.
But as Carter points out, even if the indubitable severance of sexual intimacy from marital commitment does not, in our particular case, end in divorce, abortion, or out-of-wedlock birth, there are ethical consequences to what he calls "pre-marital infidelity." Somewhere out there, single Christian, is your future spouse.
And the Faith has traditionally taught that even if you haven't met that person yet, you have ethical obligations to him or to her even now.
HT: Real Clear Religion
It should be said that there probably was never a time in American history- and maybe in human history- in which most people did not engage in pre-marital sex. But if Christianity's- and Western society's- traditional formal committment to pre-marital chastity is hypocritical, it has been truly said that hypocricy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. If most people haven't actually practiced pre-marital abstinence down through the years, it becomes all the more interesting that its mores have paid such elaborate lip service to it.
The other day I was in my favorite English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh pub here in Des Moines (well, OK- the only pub in Des Moines which consciously caters to folk whose forebears come from everywhere in the British Isles, but still one worth noting; the Royal Mile received an award from Esquire magazine in 2007 as one of the Best Bars in America). I got a chuckle from the coaster, which bore the illustrated legend, "WARNING: Beer Goggles Can Cause You To See Storks." The out-of-focus stork on the coaster, of course, was carrying a baby. "Accidents," as the saying goes, "cause people."
Nearly 40% of American births are now out of wedlock. The consequences for these children- and usually for their mothers- of such births tend to be drastic: a life of poverty, for starters, along with less tthan adequate health care and in most senses a beginning in life somewhere behind what constitutes the starting line for the rest of us. The consequences of divorce for kids have not stopped us from divorcing at unprecidented rates; though the oft-cited statistic that half of American marriages end in divorce may not be accurate (the statistic is arrived at by comparing the number of marriages which begin each year with the number that end in divorce- two sets with comparatively few members in common, and bearing no statistically necessary relationship to each other) there can be little doubt that one of the reasons is an almost total loss of the concept that we have responsibilities when it comes to maintaining or abandoning a marriage which have to do with anyone but ourselves. And, hey- if you happen to get pregnant as the result of pre-marital hanky-panky, you can always off the kid. The Supreme Court says that it's OK, after all- and one of the major American poltical parties is virtually dedicated to the proposition that being able to do so is a human right.
But as Carter points out, even if the indubitable severance of sexual intimacy from marital commitment does not, in our particular case, end in divorce, abortion, or out-of-wedlock birth, there are ethical consequences to what he calls "pre-marital infidelity." Somewhere out there, single Christian, is your future spouse.
And the Faith has traditionally taught that even if you haven't met that person yet, you have ethical obligations to him or to her even now.
HT: Real Clear Religion
Comments