On sex and purity

[Wonder99]

Hello,

I've been on a different site that has been discussing pre-marital sex and purity. When I was a kid my family went to a Baptist church where I learned pre-marital sex is absolutely a sin, and purity meant no lustful thoughts, no masturbation, and nothing beyond light kissing in a relationship. I figured that was what all Christians thought until I met a girl in college from a different denomination who felt pre-marital sex was not a sin and that was a misinterpretation, and all the other restrictions that I mentioned above for purity were moot as well. She believed however that promiscuity and sex for the sake of just personal gratification was not something that lined up with God's attitude towards sex.

I understand that particularly with purity, there's a lot of variation in beliefs, and from what I understand of the Bible, it can be pretty vague. I'm curious what is the Methodist take on pre-marital sex and purity? How does one navigate through the Bible on these topics in a careful and thoughtful manner?

Thanks,
Wonder

 

[circuitrider]

It is my understanding that the UMC supports the idea of fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness.

So the official position of the church is that the UMC is opposed to pre-marital sex.

 

[Qyöt27]

There's also something to be said for being understanding of reality. It would strike me as very odd and antithetical to find UMC parishes holding the kinds of (generally extraordinarily creepy and nigh-cultish) purity balls some churches hold, or addressing the overall concept in anything even close to the same way.

IMO, putting the topic on a pedestal like that is actively detrimental to an individual's spiritual (and oftentimes, mental) well-being, and there have been studies that link it to certain forms of sexual dysfunction later in life, since just because you get married doesn't mean all those years of conditioning just suddenly turn off overnight. Part of the UMC's Resolution on Pornography and Sexual Violence includes officially encouraging comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education, something that churches which are obsessed with 'purity' rarely if ever do.

 

[Dave-W]

There's also something to be said for being understanding of reality. It would strike me as very odd and antithetical to find UMC parishes holding the kinds of (generally extraordinarily creepy and nigh-cultish) purity balls some churches hold, or addressing the overall concept in anything even close to the same way

I am glad to see a few responses ahead of mine. I believe the OP's background (even though he was Baptist) came from the Wesleyan Holiness movement back in the 19th century. My wife and I were raised in a similar environment; but it was not formalized with "purity balls" or Abstinence rings. And DEFINITELY no "certificate of virginity" from the doctor handed to either the husband or her dad.

But there was a HUGE move to make sure no one was masturbating. The thought was that if you felt such a desire, it had to come from either sinful activity (like viewing porn) or sinful thoughts. (fantasies) Any arousal, regardless of source, was "lusting after someone" which was (per Matt 5) the sin of adultery.

I am so glad to hear you say the words "understanding of reality." The reality is most of that whole thing is based on hormones. People have hormones and will have some kind of response to them. (and that kind of response is not necessarily sinful) I do hope that message is getting down to the youth.

IMO, putting the topic on a pedestal like that is actively detrimental to an individual's spiritual (and oftentimes, mental) well-being, and there have been studies that link it to certain forms of sexual dysfunction later in life, since just because you get married doesn't mean all those years of conditioning just suddenly turn off overnight. Part of the UMC's Resolution on Pornography and Sexual Violence includes officially encouraging comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education, something that churches which are obsessed with 'purity' rarely if ever do.

Well, I can personally attest to the long term damage of the purity culture on marital intimacy.

 

[food4thought]

My background, which is nondenominational evangelical (Calvary Chapel movement) places a proper, I think, emphasis on chastity outside of marriage (going verse by verse on sermons, they address the issue in the way that the text dictates), and does not mention masturbation. I would think that if you are using an image of someone in your mind to arouse/satisfy yourself, it would seem to me that Jesus said that would be sin. Just releasing yourself without imagery I would think is safe as long as it doesn't become obsessive.

 

[cavell]

With Methodist roots, and Salvation through Christ as a result, I recall teaching in my youth to " flee youthful lusts". 1.Cor.6:18. " Titus 2:22. That means 'get running' "FLEE" "and follow after righteousness".
What was once considered "youthful lust" today seems to be lifelong.

That trail blazer for Jesus and His saving gospel, the Apostle Paul also preached, said, "It is better to marry than burn" 1 Cor. 7:9.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Wonder99, what you reported growing up with sounds pretty much like what I grew up with in the Methodist church of the 1960s and 1970s. As was said above, we teach chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within it. But we don't think it wrong to have conversations about sex to help educate our young people, answer their questions, or otherwise help them to develop a health attitude toward sex. Methodists generally don't consider sex itself to be impure or sinful in anyway. It is the misuse of sex as a tool to satisfy one's own desires at the expense of another which is sinful. Rarely is sex outside of marriage, especially among young juveniles, something that glorifies God as the relationship itself (let alone the sex) is usually about meeting one's own needs more than being a blessing to one's partner.

 

[circuitrider]

Wonder99, what you reported growing up with sounds pretty much like what I grew up with in the Methodist church of the 1960s and 1970s. As was said above, we teach chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within it. But we don't think it wrong to have conversations about sex to help educate our young people, answer their questions, or otherwise help them to develop a health attitude toward sex. Methodists generally don't consider sex itself to be impure or sinful in anyway. It is the misuse of sex as a tool to satisfy one's own desires at the expense of another which is sinful. Rarely is sex outside of marriage, especially among young juveniles, something that glorifies God as the relationship itself (let alone the sex) is usually about meeting one's own needs more than being a blessing to one's partner.

Agreed! We don't usually use "purity" language because that starts to lean towards the Roman Catholic idea that virginity is some how better or purer than married sexual relations. That isn't something we believe.

 

[cavell]

Rev. Billy Graham wrote in his book 'World Aflame' p.33 the following words......

It has always been a mark of decaying civilisations to become obsessed with sex. When people lose their way, their purpose, their will, and their goals, as well as their faith. like the ancient Israelites, they go "a-whoring". It is a form of diversion that requires no thought, no character, and no restraint. One of the world's great historians told me; "The moral deterioration in the West will destroy us......

Our Western society has become so obsessed with sex that it seeps from all the pores of our national life. Formerly novelists wove the subject subtly into their stories as a part of life. But today the successors of D.H.Lawrence and a dozen other "emancipated" authors pour out a stream of perverse , vulgar, and even obscene writings like the drippings from a broken sewer. Sex is front page copy everywhere.

The question is, does freedom of speech and the press imply the freedom to corrupt the minds of the people through mass media, thus inciting every form of sexual perversion and immorality? We have laws in our cities forbidding open sewers and cesspools. Why should we not have laws forbidding pornography and obscenity? Many heroic leaders have tried but they have stumbled over the definition of the word "obscenity". It we cannot agree on the length of a foot, it is because we have lost our yardstick. No one has ever improved upon the moral yardstick given to man in the Ten Commandments. Pornography is anything that depicts lewdness in such a way as to create impure thoughts and lusts. However the sewers continue to flow, destroying the moral fabric of our society until they have become the greatest threat to our security.........

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Agreed! We don't usually use "purity" language because that starts to lean towards the Roman Catholic idea that virginity is some how better or purer than married sexual relations. That isn't something we believe.

One challenge to purity I think that many Methodists would have is the notion that a non-virgin is "damaged goods". For example, I've heard of youth groups using an 'example' like, "If I passed this water bottle around to everyone in the room, would you want to drink from it?". Shaming people isn't the way to go and redemption is part of Christ's messaged. People who aren't virgins aren't "damaged". That's primitive, midevil type thinking.

Personally, I think the UMC's position on fidelity in singleness and in marriage (i.e., sex is reserved for ones spouse) is a noble and admirable goal. Though I'm pragmatic enough to know that even in the most hardened of fundamentalist circles; most kids touch and have sex. When you get them in a room and promise not to tell their parents; they'll tell you they've had sex. A 2013 study said that about 60% of all High School seniors have had sex in the last three months. It's a reality not worth sticking our head in the sand. So while abstinence is noble and perhaps even what God would have us do; I also think it's reasonable to support sex-ed and contraceptive care for the safety of our kids. I don't think most teenagers are emotionally mature enough for a sexual relationship. However, I also know most teenagers don't care what old preachers think they are mature enough to do I know when I was a kid, I always figured being told kids weren't "mature enough" to do something applied to OTHER KIDS, and not me. I probably was more mature than some of my classmates; but I certainly wasn't as grown up as I thought I was.

Despite believing fidelity in singleness and marriage is an ideal someone should strive for; I would be passionately against "purity balls" and the like. Teens should know they are loved by God. Not be told they are 'broken' if they have sex.

My predecessor at my current appointment; an extremely well educated (phD) but very down to earth man with a booming voice who stands about 6'5" once told me, "I tell people I never had sex until I was married. And that's true. But what I don't tell them is that I wanted to, it's just nobody would let me."

 

[circuitrider]

The notion of sexual "purity" used wrongly leads to the notion that someone is "used" or "broken" or "unredeemable." It isn't a notion that jives with the Christian theology of forgiveness or redemption.

Also it is usually sexist. Women are chastised much more if they are not virgins but men are seen to be "sowing their wild oats." In the scriptures a woman was caught in adultery but the man who was with her was let off the hook.

We also have a lot to figure in respect to marriage and the Bible that the idea of sexual purity doesn't even deal with. Our ideas of government sanctioned licenses for weddings followed by a civil or religious ceremony can't be found in the Bible.

Our notion of marrying for romantic love also isn't held up in the Bible as the reason to get married.

So we don't do a good job of discussing singles who are living in committed relationships without government sanction. We have no language to talk about people who may have made a religious commitment and not a civil commitment or visa versa.

We talk about Biblical marriage and then ignore that in parts of the Bible polygamy is Biblical marriage, arranged marriages are Biblical marriages, etc.

 

[Dave-W]

We talk about Biblical marriage and then ignore that in parts of the Bible polygamy is Biblical marriage, arranged marriages are Biblical marriages, etc

And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?

 

[Dave-W]

The notion of sexual "purity" used wrongly leads to the notion that someone is "used" or "broken" or "unredeemable." It isn't a notion that jives with the Christian theology of forgiveness or redemption.

It also gives rise to some wildly unattainable expectations.

As I have mentioned before in another thread, the congregation I attended in college broke up a few engagements when the leadership found out that one or the other had sexual desires for their future mate. (and yes - they DID ask)

 

[circuitrider]

And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?

That is my point exactly. When I hear people say, "We need to get back to 'Biblical marriage'" I want to know what they are talking about. Much of the marriage practices found in the Bible have nothing to do at all with how people get married today or what the expectations are for marriage.

 

[circuitrider]

It also gives rise to some wildly unattainable expectations.

As I have mentioned before in another thread, the congregation I attended in college broke up a few engagements when the leadership found out that one or the other had sexual desires for their future mate. (and yes - they DID ask)

Wow. IMHO what goes beyond the pale of what a local church has a right to stick their noses into. Run fast from any church that tries to control your personal relationships.

 

[Dave-W]

Wow. IMHO what goes beyond the pale of what a local church has a right to stick their noses into. Run fast from any church that tries to control your personal relationships.

Didn't realize it at the time, but many classic cult signs were there. They actually DID arranged marriages, but did it on the sly so only a part of the leadership team understood what was going on. (the sr pastor, elder board and a few of the deacons)

 

[JCFantasy23]

It also gives rise to some wildly unattainable expectations.

As I have mentioned before in another thread, the congregation I attended in college broke up a few engagements when the leadership found out that one or the other had sexual desires for their future mate. (and yes - they DID ask)

Wow, that's awful. To me I'd worry more about future marriage if the people didn't have desires for each other. That would mean they didn't have chemistry anyway and shouldn't tie the knot.

 

[Dave-W]

ow, that's awful. To me I'd worry more about future marriage if the people didn't have desires for each other. That would mean they didn't have chemistry anyway and shouldn't tie the knot.

They taught that before you said "I DO," any and all sexual feelings were sinful lust and perversion.

IMO it was a fleshly over-reaction to the "evangelical" efforts of one or more "evangelists" that came to our congregation when the local Children of God cult group folded.

 

[circuitrider]

They taught that before you said "I DO," any and all sexual feelings were sinful lust and perversion.

IMO it was a fleshly over-reaction to the "evangelical" efforts of one or more "evangelists" that came to our congregation when the local Children of God cult group folded.

American Christians are more obsessed with sex, controlling sex, controlling what other people do with sex, and what everyone believes about sex than just about any other culture.

 

[Dave-W]

American Christians are more obsessed with sex, controlling sex, controlling what other people do with sex, and what everyone believes about sex than just about any other culture.

Indeed.

Have you ever seen the drawings for anti-masturbation devices submitted for US patent office approval during the last half of the 19th century? Google it only if you have a very strong stomach. Most of the inventors were SDA (a wesleyan holiness offshoot). Drs Kellogg and Graham (along with Post) invented whole grain foods for the same purpose. (corn flakes, graham crackers)