Tag Archives: sexuality
What is mind-boggling to me is the number of self-professing Christians that are unhappy with the statement. I can understand lost people hating it, they hate the truth of God’s Word. Their mind and heart are ravaged by sin and under the influence of their inherent sin nature. As enemies of God (we are all born this way), they reject His authority and the clear principles for life given in Scripture. After all, darkness hates light. Darkness craves darkness to continue evil deeds that darkness loves. So when lost people react with vitriol to a biblical statement of orthodox Christian doctrine, it’s no surprise.
But I can’t figure out why Christians are so upset.
It’s almost too absurd to consider. And yet, it’s a reality in our upside down social landscape. Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the City Council sought to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advocate abortion. Mayor Blake an the City Council apparently are so committed to abortion in Baltimore that they are willing to force people fundamentally opposed to it to not only support it, but to help advertise it.
A recent article reports:
It seems everyone these days is interested in sex in some way. Whether we’re talking about heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or transsexual; everyone is interested in sex in one way or another. Everyone except for…the asexual person.
Asexuality is defined as follows:
“the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity. It may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the variations thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities.”
Most of us will have a hard time comprehending a life where sex is of absolutely no interest. We can’t begin to understand what it would be like to live with no attraction to anyone. And in our highly sexualized culture the idea that someone is entirely unconcerned with sex is even harder to understand. But there may be value in understanding this sexual orientation sub-culture and what part, if any, they play in the ongoing discussions of gender, sexuality, and marriage.
Let’s not pretend that everyone hasn’t seen the Vanity Fair cover featuring acclaimed Olympian Bruce Jenner. Let’s start off being honest enough to admit that we’ve seen it, considered it, and have many mixed emotions and thoughts about it.
Now that we are on the same page about a magazine cover that will become an iconic American symbol (whether we like it or not), we can begin discussing the proper response to it.
As is often the case, our initial response to shocking things can be less than our best. We need time to process things, to fully consider the ramifications, and to understand the details in order to prepare a response. We’ve reached that time. The magazine cover is so widely circulated now that at some point you will be asked if you’ve seen it, and what your thoughts are. Are you prepared for that question?
First, we have to understand the cultural push to recreate “normal.” This isn’t the 50’s when it was as simple as boys are boys and girls are girls. The new normal is nothing less than a full frontal assault on gender and sexuality such as has never been seen in history. Boys are now boys that identify at times as girls, while girls are attracted to other girls. And any combination and variation on that you can imagine is not only happening, it’s hip.
Even Bruce Jenner, in a promo video for his new reality series about his dramatic journey has proclaimed that he is, in fact, the “new normal.” If he is the new normal, how are we to respond with love and compassion to a culture that sees deviant behavior as both acceptable and celebrated?
A good place to start is an article found at The Gospel Coalition. The article puts forth a solid starting point for responding to questions about Bruce Jenner, the Vanity Fair cover, and new cultural norms in general. The article has three simple thoughts it asks us as Christians to keep in mind when we are faced with the need to respond to our culture. Those three simple thoughts are:
Anyone who has sought to support traditional marriage over the last few years has no doubt heard of Ryan T. Anderson. Perhaps no other voice in the debate over what marriage is (and is not) has carried more weight in recent history.
Though he is only 33 years old, Anderson has achieved a level of fame (and notoriety) that most his age don’t even know exist. As a professing Christian, PhD. Holder, editor of a highly successful online publication, and senior fellow at the highly respected Heritage Foundation, Anderson has risen to credible levels in a short time.
With the notoriety and influential voice comes a price.
For Anderson the price is the target on his back each and every day simply because he opposed same-sex “marriage” and argued for traditional marriage with inexhaustible vigilance. And though Anderson has established a reputation for being civil and respectful in his discussions and debates with his opponents (no matter how vile they treat him) he is attacked relentlessly for his views.
But it’s not his position that concerns me, after all, as a Christian I hold to the biblical complimentarian view of marriage and sexuality the same as Anderson. Rather, it’s the position of those that oppose him that concerns me most.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to teach impressionable children that gender is just a construct of society and is really as fluid as they want it to be? In fact, we should teach them that there are many genders, perhaps a dozen, and let them pick and choose which they want to be.
That’s what one of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to teach its students via a new health and sexuality curriculum.
At a time when gender is suddenly a debatable topic – because apparently we’re not content with just boys and girls – this school system wants to further confuse the situation by affirming that people can be more than just male and female. No longer is your anatomy the definer of your gender identity, now you can choose; you can even choose to be something other than male and female! (Could someone please explain that one to me!?)
The Fairfax County Public School system is preparing to implement changes to their family life curriculum which includes teaching on gender identity that can only be described as disastrous and unscientific. A report describes the curriculum for middle school this way:
Abigail Rine is a professor of English at George Fox University. Each year she hands out a reading assignment to her gender theory students designed to provoke them. She recently decided to assign the book “What Is Marriage” by noted Princeton professor Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis. The book is a simple explanation of the conjugal view of traditional marriage.
Rine reports that the book, which is a manual of sorts on the traditional view of marriage as it relates to procreation, was offensive to her evangelical students at her evangelical university. Let that sink in for a moment.
But Rine said something that needs to be admitted: the church helped create the effort to redefine marriage.
I don’t mean that the church altered biblical teaching or even advocated marriage redefinition. Certainly some churches have done this but the vast majority of churches today continue to adhere to traditional biblical teaching of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. What I mean is that how the church handled the issue of marriage and sexuality in past decades aided the rise of marriage redefinition efforts.
Yesterday I posted part 1 of this commentary – it’s a good place to start.
Fight The New Drug is a group whose mission “is to use science, facts, and personal accounts to educate on the harmful effects of pornography and sexual exploitation.” This is a secular group, not a religious group that believes (correctly) that pornography in any form – including literature – is harmful. Here’s what they had to say about the movie:
“We know that books can most definitely be pornographic. Especially books like Fifty Shades of Grey that contain a high amount of highly explicit and graphic sexual content. 42% of male students and 20% of women said they regularly read romance novels, sexually explicit magazines, or regularly visited sexually explicit forums or chat rooms. Literature like Fifty Shades of Grey is referred to as erotica and can be just as addictive and as harmful in warping ideas about sex and intimacy as porn videos/images.”
Yet another non-religious voice decrying 50 Shades of grey while Christians eagerly line up to watch it. Anyone else see the problem with that?
Fight The New Drug has also compiled a list – along with an infographic you can see below – of the harmful views espoused in 50 Shades:
It seems West Virginia has yet another dubious honor: pre-release ticket sales for the pending movie “Fifty Shades of Grey” are higher than expected.
Yep, apparently the controversial movie is seeing higher than expected ticket sales in states known to be “conservative and Christian.” These states include Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, and Louisiana. According to ticket tracking groups, it was surprising to see pre-release ticket sales so high in these so-called “conservative and Christian” states.
What has also been commented on as the movie is set to release is the number of Christian women planning to see it. Not only are they eager to see the movie, they are getting all their gal-pals together for a night at the theater. (I suppose Magic Mike 2 will be next on their list.)
Somehow our Christian culture has entirely lost its moral compass. The very idea that groups of Christian women would be planning to see this movie is indicative of the fact that we’ve lost our way. The fact that they would so casually trump the movie as some epic story worthy of attention indicates a complete lack of biblical understanding regarding sexuality, intimacy, and marriage. And the fact that what would have been considered porn just 25 years ago is now accepted and celebrated by our culture…our Christian culture.
Let’s be clear, what a married man and woman do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business. As long as that activity does not violate any explicit or implicit biblical principle then it’s entirely up to them. This means viewing pornography together and threesomes are wrong even if the man and woman consent. This simple fact also means that gathering my buddies to go watch a sexually explicit movie together is wrong – as in the case of “50 Shades of Grey.”
Let’s review the basic premise of the movie.