Interesting... Could it be that we're teaching the practical too much but not teaching the theological? Are we making it more about following certain rules rather than living a certain heart-life?

Some surveys have found that young people who take an abstinence pledge are no less likely than others to engage in sexual activity, and are MORE likely to have unprotected sexual activity (resulting in more pregnancies and STI's).

One interpretation is that the abstinence pledgers feel more shame about their sexual activity and thus do less planning ahead--so, they don't have condoms ready when they do have sex.

Also, one survey found that more than 50% of teens who took an abstinence pledge denied ever having done so a year later.

It would seem that the church has finally become 'relevant' and 'engaged' the culture. Isn't that what we are constantly being told we need to do?

But seriously; we watch the same TV shows, go to the same movies, play the same video games, dress the same, everything the same. We don't want doctrine but only, "Jesus loves you" and our own version of social justice. When we do hear about sexual purity the words have no backbone because, as Robert states, it is "... more about following certain rules rather than living a certain heart-life?" Sin, consequence and repentance are so long-gone from the evangelical vocabulary that few care any more. When the speakers at many Christian universities and youth conferences tell us that the LGBT lifestyle is nothing to be ashamed of and we bring it into the church, what do we expect?

When we have introduced the LGBT lifestyle into the church, why are we surprised?

It also strikes me that birth control has created part of the problem. Sex is for one thing, and that is procreation.

Birth control is no different than abortion. In both cases, women want to control their bodies at the expense of God.

The decision about whether a woman can use birth control should be left in the hands of the husband, who is the leader of the marriage, and the pastor, who speaks for God.

But even then, Satan will creep in. That is why the optimum solution is to outlaw birth control and prevent the problem.

As a minister who works in a ministry dealing with engaged couples and preparing them for marriage the tragedy of the times is evident in most of my meetings with them.

At this point I am convinced that 90% of the couples coming through our course (we serve about 100 couples a year) have had or are having sexual relationships. It is the reality of the day.

The Church has lost an entire generation on this issue. We signed "True Love Waits" cards and were handed purity rings by parents...only to forget it all because we have lost our ability to see the lines of God's standards.

Maybe we can recapture our position in this culture, but not when the more popular "Christian" products are out there based on image and style.

The ironic thing is that many, many evangelical young adults make it through high school and college just fine but enter the space between college and marriage and begin to make their sexual decisions. We have no support mechanism there.

part of this problem is the reaping of what we have sown in the wider culture.

Our religious communities readily advocated (long before the mid 20th Century) for the extension of childhood, raising the ages of consent, not critiquing the disintegration of extended family structures in the industrial period, etc. etc.

these old structures supported the hard science of biology. (not saying we should be more patriarchal or let kids work 14 hour days)

Our bodies are designed to be having sex and reproducing at a much earlier age...but our society is structured to not support early marriage, and NOW we're seeing even longer extensions of adolescence and avoidance of marriage.

Even then, our current conception of marriage is unhinged from extended family structures and communal stability.

then we rail against people wanting to do what they are biologically designed to do, WHEN they are designed to do it by virtue of their biology.

There's a huge disconnect between our bodies and the wider societal norms that WE helped create in the name of religious values.

The Church needs to own this... and figure out a way forward without becoming Amish or more negative about the bodies God gave us.

Just read Scot McKnight's book One Life. Wow. His chapter on Sex.Life is spot on.

We've removed sex from lifelong relationship. "What's love got to do with it?" That message comes from ads, TV, movies, virtually every media we consume. Breathe that air enough and it changes you. As Scot points out, it also leads to really lonely people, but sex isn't part of the bonding; it's part of the brokenness.

Oh, for healing and restoration! And for the culture to recognize the damage the disconnection has caused.

"then we rail against people wanting to do what they are biologically designed to do, WHEN they are designed to do it by virtue of their biology."

I think we're trying to that exactly.

Unfortunately, as you point out Nathan, as a society we have squelched the marriage in the teens to marriage in the twenties...I'm not sure what it is today, but I've been seeing thirty year olds getting married for the first time, so maybe we're pushing the age further back.

Anyway, I kind of enjoyed Fish's snark...it's creative.

oooops...

i didn't mean for Fish to get censored.

I'm still genuinely wondering what the criteria is for deleting comments.

and I'm wondering why I have to keep asking and not get some simple direction/answers from UrL.

I'm not trying to be combative.

I'm seeking to understand.

thanks.

I realize that the entire point of this post was to get people riled up, and it seems to have done just that, but I'm a little hesitant to jump to the same conclusion as Mark Regnerus. The evidence presented concerns churchgoers, not participants in abstinence programs. Unless those surveyed attend churches that seriously discuss sexual abstinence every Sunday, we cannot equate church with a sexual abstinence program.

I would be interested to see the ages of those surveyed, because it seems unlikely that anybody out of high school or perhaps college would actually be a participant in an abstinence program. Serious abstinence programs are a relatively recent phenomenon and are certainly not widespread. If it turns out that most of the men surveyed never actually participated in a church-based abstinence program, then it's no surprise that abstinence programs aren't working for them. That is not to say that the programs really do work, but instead that the conclusion that they do not work is not supported by the evidence given.

I see now, after reading the quote in context: Mark Regnerus doesn't argue that church-based abstinence programs aren't working, Url does. Url, you're jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence provided (see my earlier comment).

@Matt - the title tells you the excerpt is taken out of context so no surprise there. Also it doesn't make any conclusions, much less "jump" to them. It simply invites discussion.

Really no need for sensible people "to get riled up", as you put it.