Anchored

What follows is part of an email I sent earlier this week to the parents of the small group I lead at the church I attend:

Some of us met this past Sunday afternoon for the parenting class that our church has been offering. Before the class started, a young father approached me and asked my thoughts about sex education in the home. Then, during session 1, Paul Tripp (the instructor) said that the topic of sex ed is a topic that needs to “stay on the table” within family discussions. When session 1 was over, some of the guys were asking about materials that would help facilitate these discussions, and I shared with them what I’ve been doing in my own family. We live in a hyper-sexualized culture and I see the devastating effects of that in my office every week. Unfortunately, too many of these casualties are Christians. One recurring theme among them is that their parents never made sex a topic of ongoing conversation. Much of that, I’m sure, is based on fear, and other times it’s just the awkwardness of the topic. But since it came up Sunday afternoon, and since I’m an advocate of open dialogue on the subject among families, let me suggest a curriculum you might consider taking your children through for both your benefit and theirs.

For some time now, my family and I have been using a curriculum by Stan and Brenna Jones (Stan is a professor of psychology at Wheaton College). The parent’s text is entitled, How & When to Tell Your Children About Sex: A Lifelong Approach to Shaping Your Child’s Sexual Character. You can see it here.

Then there are four books that are categorized in age-appropriate divisions so that you can take your child through it at your own pace. Book 1 is, The Story of Me (ages 3-5); Book 2 is, Before I Was Born (ages 5-8); Book 3 is, What’s the Big Deal (ages 8-11); and Book 4 is, Facing the Facts (ages 11-14). You can see these books at these links:

Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 4

Tamarah and I have decided the age recommendations on the books are a bit aggressive for us personally (we are just 2 chapters away from finishing book 3 and our boys are 12 and 14), so every family has to decide for themselves what and how and when to take this on. But one thing I would say you must not do is nothing. As someone once said, “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” Something is better than nothing. I also think the lifelong approach is far better than having “the talk” one time and never again (makes the topic into some anomaly, and that’s just weird). The subject and the reality are developmental, and our children will benefit far more if we bring them along as their lives mature and change.

There’s a lot more to say about all of this, but I wanted to at least get this much out based on the conversations some of us were having this past Sunday. Hope this helps. If you want or need anything more on this, or if this raises other questions, please feel free to ask away. I’m here to help.

In one of his books on marriage, Douglas Wilson writes,

When men fall away from the Lord, they do so for all kinds of reasons–money, career, a woman, sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. But when women fall away from the Lord, invariably there is a man involved” (Her Hand in Marriage, p. 75).

I would add my own observation to this: when a husband wrecks his marriage for another woman, there is greater hope for the marriage to be restored than if the wife wrecks her marriage for another man. Here why I think this is so: men typically stray for something physical, while women typically stray for something relational. It’s much easier to undo the physical than the relational. I’ve seen many marriages restored after the husband strays; I’ve seen very few marriages restored after the wife strays.

I recently read an article on sex addiction in which the author conceded that there is not much research or literature on the subject. Fortunately, the Bible is not silent on the subject; additionally, there is beginning to be a trickle of research on this, and some of it from a Christian perspective. A newly released book by William Struthers, entitled, Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain, looks like a good resource to follow up on.

Al Mohler has a quick review of the book, in which he writes,

“The simplest explanation for why men view pornography (or solicit prostitutes) is that they are driven to seek out sexual intimacy,” he explains. The urge for sexual intimacy is God-given and essential to the male, he acknowledges, but it is easily misdirected. Men are tempted to seek “a shortcut to sexual pleasure via pornography” and now find this shortcut easily accessed.

In a fallen world, pornography becomes more than a distraction and a distortion of God’s intention for human sexuality. It comes as an addictive poison.

Struthers explains:

Viewing pornography is not an emotionally or physiologically neutral experience. It is fundamentally different from looking at black and white photos of the Lincoln Memorial or taking in a color map of the provinces of Canada. Men are reflexively drawn to the content of pornographic material. As such, pornography has wide-reaching effects to energize a man toward intimacy. It is not a neutral stimulus. It draws us in. Porn is vicarious and voyeuristic at its core, but it is also something more. Porn is a whispered promise. It promises more sex, better sex, endless sex, sex on demand, more intense orgasms, experiences of transcendence.

Pornography “acts as a polydrug,” Struthers explains. As Dr. Patrick Carnes asserts, pornography is “a pathological relationship with a mood-altering experience.” Boredom and curiosity lead many boys and men into experiences that become more like drug addiction than is often admitted.

Why men rather than women? As Struthers explains, the male and female brains are wired differently. “A man’s brain is a sexual mosaic influenced by hormone levels in the womb and in puberty and molded by his psychological experience.” Over time, exposure to pornography takes a man or boy deeper along “a one-way neurological superhighway where a man’s mental life is over-sexualized and narrowed. This superhighway has countless on-ramps but very few off-ramps.

You can read all of Mohler’s comments here, and you can find the book here.

A few days ago, a very good and short piece of writing was blogged by Wesley Hill on the topic homosexuality and the Church. Wesley is a Christian who has struggled for years to stay celibate while being tempted with same-gender attractions. His blog entry mainly focuses on the common experience of loneliness as a celibate homosexual while also wishing the Church provided safer relationships to work through these issues. I would recommend reading Wesley’s piece, and you can find it here.

Evidently, Wesley’s piece stirred up some good discussion (which I have not followed); however, one good expansion of what Wesley began was continued in Q&A form between Justin Taylor and David Powlison. I always appreciate David’s wise, balanced, gracious, and biblical thoughts on such things, and you can see their healthy dialogue here.

Since too many homosexuals I know have had bad experiences in sharing their struggles in the Church, I hope the dialogue that Wesley brought up continues to the point that local churches grow to be safe places where those with same-gender attractions can openly pursue a life of holiness with the whole of God’s family.

In an open letter to the President of the University of Toledo, Dr. Robert Gagnon details his opposition of equating a person’s race and a person’s sexual orientation. His letter is thorough and may be more information that you care to read through, but let me highlight two parts. First, consider this section that gives yet another devastating consequence of divorce:

“6. Another study indicates influences from family structure: Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, concluded in a 2006 study that men were more likely to marry homosexually if their parents had divorced or cohabited for only a short duration, if parental cohabitation had been characterized by long periods of a father’s absence, or if paternal identity were unknown.  Women were more likely to marry homosexually if their parents had a short marriage or if the mother had been absent during the child’s adolescence because of abandonment of death. For each extra year that one’s parents stayed married, the percentage of those who married heterosexually went up 1.6% among sons and 1% among daughters, while the percentage of those who married homosexually went down 1.8% among sons and 1.4% among daughters. The study also found that having older brothers increased the likelihood of marrying heterosexually, a result that stands in tension with a Canadian study that found that the incidence of homosexuality increases in proportion to the number of older brothers.”

Second, the last third of Dr. Gagnon’s letter is a clear, reasonable, researched, biological explanation of why same-gender sex (not the same as same-gender love) is not God’s design. This last section of the letter is very good and helpful. To read the entire letter, click here.

Here are four messages by Mark Dever (lead pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC) on gender related issues.

Gender confusion is so pervasive that I count it among the most common and serious problems I face each day in the counselor’s chair. The implications of what I’m calling (in general terms) gender confusion are often subtle but always serious. From ignorance of or misunderstandings in the husband/wife roles in marriage to distortions of human sexuality and behavior, the messages of society at large regarding gender issues are both aggressive and confusing.   

For a starting point in the discussion on gender-related issues, I can’t think of a better summary document than the Danvers Statement. The Danvers Statement serves as an overview of the core beliefs of the Council on Bibilical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW). This statement was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a CBMW meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December of 1987. It was first published in final form by the CBMW in Wheaton, Illinois in November of 1988. Here, then, is the Danvers Statement:

Rationale

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;
2. the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood;
3. the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives;
4. the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women;
5. the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal of human sexuality;
6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;
7. the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness;
8. the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;
9. the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity;
10. and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical Biblical authenticity which in the power of the Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture.

Affirmations

Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:

1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
   • In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
   • In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.
5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
   • In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
   • In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).
8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.
9. With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).
10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large