Return
to overview of this article.
The church, which has traditionally supported sexual restraint, should strongly support and endorse those young people who wish to remain celibate. The best secular surveys of how to prevent premarital pregnancies have concluded that the only societal system which has ever worked with near-complete success is segregation of the sexes until marriage (Ford & Beach, 1952). Since this is so contrary to current societal fashion the church has been forced into mere mild admonition of its youth, which has had a negligible effect - surveys starting with Kinsey (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) have shown there is only about 10-20% difference between pre-marital sexual activity in Christian and non-Christian young people. However another structure is emerging which is proving very effective. Started in the United States it essentially involves church-sponsored "chastity clubs" under various names for young people. This seems to be an excellent way specifically for churches to counter the strong peer pressure and adult societal pressure to have sex early and often, and this commission should specifically endorse such organisations as very useful methods to discourage premarital sex.
The church should be aware that she has within her a very significant minority uninterested in sex. For some this is legitimate, and they correspond to the scriptural category of those who have a gift to be single. The rest however may be that way as a result of psychological damage. They probably constitute a few percent of most congregations, and because of the size of this group they certainly deserve pastoral attention and in some cases mutual support groups. These would probably be rather different from the singles' clubs already in existence, which have quite a strong heterosexual emphasis appealing to those without psychological damage.
I view this as coinciding with the heart of the Gospel. The Gospel is good news to many people caught in a huge variety of human conditions, some environmental, some from within the personality, but many seemingly impossible to overcome. God declares hope to our race, and has intervened on our behalf, through his Son, offering help. This is the supreme environmental intervention to which the scientists only point dimly. No one, whatever their case or condition need ever feel they are caught forever and inescapably in their personal Hell.
This is important, because very many church people, not familiar with the strong consensus views of scientists tend to imagine that in their churches there are many people with strong unchangeable problems which they were born with. It is a failure of hope and faith to accept that belief about any condition, including the sexual, however strong the urges to behaviour may seem.
Should not the church therefore, be foremost helping those who want to change? And we should all be in this process of change, for the Gospel is radical in its demands in all spheres of our life. We must be a community of those who are fulfilling the Gospel by allowing ourselves to change and helping others to change. We can also learn to help others with sexual problems, though we will need to learn much first.
What direction should change be in? Science does not give clear answers, and tends to ignore any issues but the technical ones. For Christians however, there is a clear road sign - everyone should aim to be more like Jesus of Nazareth whom they have committed themselves to follow. He is free and calls us to freedom though the way be very hard and narrow. Any element of sexuality which makes us less a free agent, is less than his ideal. Many elements of sexuality tend to be partly compulsive; we and others have often painted ourselves into corners through the brush strokes of frequent repetition and fantasy. We also show the typical behaviour of addicts - we refuse to admit we have a problem.
What of those who do not wish to change? Perhaps, at least for the moment, happy the way they are? During that temporary happiness, to some extent they place themselves on a side road away from the fellowship of those who wish to change. People cannot be forced to change, but they can be offered the possibility, and the sacrificial help to achieve it. Those who actually want our help will probably take so much of our time we will not have much to spend on offering help to those who don't want it. We must also refuse to accept that any opposition of those unwilling to enter the community of change is fixed and unalterable. Believing that opponents in any debate can never change is a betrayal of the very principle of change and hence of the Gospel. We can never rest until we are all in full possession of that freedom to which we are called.
Within the fellowship of the church, there are many who have problems of control with aspects of their sexuality. They are a hidden minority, who do not reveal their problems because they experience a hostile climate. They hear condemnation, either explicit from the pulpit, or implicit in attitudes of fellow parishioners. Unless they meet people like themselves who have obviously changed, or find a group which accepts yet challenges them and holds them accountable, they will still hide their problem. Clergy are most likely to be aware of parishioners with problems like this, and should suggest formation of support groups as far as possible.
Love is not jealous. Whatever the self sacrifice seen in a relationship, if it is emotionally exclusive and will not admit others at least as friends, is that love?
Love does not harbour resentment. If it is hypersensitive to rejection or behaves in a "difficult" way, is that love?
Love has unquenchable faith. It never fades out. It creates a deep lifelong partnership of faithfulness. If there is a lesser standard than this we must ask "is that really love"?
This standard of love is so high, that we should hesitate before labelling any behaviour "love". Most heterosexual forms of "love" do not fulfil it, let alone others. The figures in part I for mean length of sexual relationships are not encouraging.
Last modified 7 February 1996