Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com Congratulations, Shayna. Great writing. I admire your courage evidenced by your willingness to swim against the prevailing cultural current. I can vouch for the veracity of the assertion you made when you said: "There once was a time in history when a woman's virginity was prized. It was not only a mark of good breeding, but the procurement of a spouse of respectability and status depended on it. Pre-martial virginity was not some freak rarity among young people; it was the norm." Some young readers may think that you are referring to the patriarchal time of the Old Testament, or to when Dinasaurs roamed the earth. I can tesfify that virginity was the norm when I was young, and I am not even a century old. What a blessing it was for us to pick almost any Adventist girl knowing that we were dealing with a virgin. I wish those times would come back. You must be a prized possession for some lucky young man. God bless! P.S.: Where are the young bloggers?

Thanks so much for reading and commenting, Nic! Hopefully more young bloggers will be popping over to our site (and yours!) as the blogs take off. Blessings!

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

I question your grasp of reality, regarding the preponderance of virginity in your youth. I am 54 this year and as a past student of La Sierra university, during a health class I was presented with the statistics from a poll in 1975 of adventist youth, in the north american division, the poll came out with numbers of less than fifty percent. as a son of a adventist minister and grandfather, I never saw anything to support your opinion of virginity being the majority. I can tell you this, that the obsession with this by some conservative believers, has been, much more of a repeat of the attitudes of the saducee and pharisee, point of view. What I find saddening is the same old propaganda of having purity vows and retreats for young women, if you are really concerned, shouldn't the issue be why aren't there equal events for young men? The continuum of the sexist notion that men are the sexual aggressors, along with the hoary old chestnut of women having a higher spiritual nature, certainly isn't biblical in foundation most modern adults will admit, in private or at least out of the hearing of their parents and some of their peers that women are equally the aggressor and initiator of sexual intimacy. there are many polls that support this fact. A examination of the bible would also give examples of women who used their sexuality to accomplish various deeds. i think a cursory examination of the obsession with virginity and honor, in cultures around the world will show that it is one of the most hypocritical cultural behaviors, known today. honor killings and divorces for not having a intact hymen, is one of the ultimate ironies. Lorin Finney

Dear Lorin, 

Thank you for your comment.  In response to your suggestion that there should be equal purity events for young men, I am in complete agreement.  However, I think the responsibility of such falls within the individual churches.  Women’s ministries have traditionally been more active than men's ministries, as a result of the initiative of individual members.  As a result, these ministries and the women initiating them have helped to foster participation among young women in purity events.  I, by no means, attempt to suggest that purity is a subject that should be proposed to one gender over the other.  Your observation that the responsibility of appropriate conduct and physical boundaries should be shared by both men and women is also correct and admirable.  I share your dedication to the attention needed on young men’s purity.  Perhaps you may consider starting a young men’s study or support group at your own church.

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com Lorin, Your are 54 and you think that you are old enough to question my "grasp of reality, regarding the preponderance of virginity in" my youth? You cite the results of a 1975 study. I was referring to the situation which was prevalent in the 1950's. A quarter of a century is significant expecially if you consider that I was talking about a time well before the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Besides, I grew up in Argentina, not the U.S. My assumption was that the moral climate among Seventh-day Adventists existent prior to the sexual revolution was similar in the Unites States, but I have no way of documenting this. By the way, when I was young, virginity was the norm not only among girls but rather among all SDA youth. There was no significant difference between boys and girls.

Truth Seeker In former days, such as the 1940s and 1950s I'm certain we can safely say that the majority of young Adventists were without sexual experience until marriage.

Regarding the exact time period to which I was referring as being "a time in history when virginity was to be prized," I was citing the nature of human social progression, not necessarily a statistic of the 1970's or otherwise. Undoubtedly, the experiences of every culture are varied. However, there have been multiple times in history when this statement has been true (evidenced by the comments of Nic and Truth Seeker)--even if it was not YOUR time in history (Lorin).

In response to "if you are really concerned" (Lorin), my concern is implicit in the choice of topics which I blog about. I maintain that if personal hurts have been incurred as a result of the lack of available purity retreats (or other resources) and then, those hurts resurface as a result of anything I write here, the responsibility for amendment falls on the individual reader. I cannot carry the torch for the personal causes of every reader. So again, I encourage you to initiate the change you endeavor to see in the church.

Finally, my basis for the relationship advice I give will always be deeply rooted in the Bible. If that makes me a "conservative" or a "Pharisee," I question the reader's opinion of where Christian relationship advice should be grounded.

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

As a virgin bride when married 65 years ago, marriage age was also much earlier. Today, the average age of marriage is past 25 for both men and women, and for many it is much later. I have a daughter who was first married at 42 and a granddaughter at 32, so to expect the mores of centuries ago when women were given in marriage by their fathers, and when "proof of virginity" was often required of a bride, are no longer so prized. Then, as now, virginity was only a female trait, not for men. Marriage customs have vastly changed during this world's history. Does anyone wish to have virginity rated as it was then? Years ago a nephew stated that virginity was far down on his list of important traits for a girl to bring to marriage; and it certainly has never been required of males, because virginity could not easily be verified. The "recycled virginity" surgery is a profitable procedure in the Middle East where it is highly prized; so much that females are killed to protect the family's honor. So much for the "good old days." Expecting young people to remain virgins until their later 20s or further is totally unrealistic, and where are the pastors marrying young people who ever asks for proof of virginity or even asks such a question of the young couple? Many engaged couples live together before formally marrying. Virginity has been highly overrated and while early teen sexual promiscuity, or promiscuity at any age is to be deplored, we live in a world today that is changing and regardless of one's expectation of virginity, it will not change things.

The greatest insurance for virginity is for the young person to value him or herself and their future. When one has prospects for a college education and future vocation, they will be less apt to consider the possible effects of pregnancy, STDs or the consequences that would drastically change life. If both boys and girls were taught care and responsibility for an infant in their late middle school or high school, and the possibility of early sexual activities would drastically shorten all future, it would be a good barrier. For a girl to consider that pregnancy and a baby would limit her future; and that for a boy, financial responsibility until an infant reaches the age of 18, it would also be very cautionary. That said, I believe that all pregnant teens should be allowed to complete their education and if there are willing grandparents to help, that is a sacrifice that might be called upon. In schools where a "real baby doll" is given students, who cries anytime 24/7 and requires the same time zone for care, feeding, etc., and that the baby can never be left alone, they begin to realize the tremendous responsibility that parenthood brings.

Dear Elaine, 

Thank you for your comment.  However, I must say that much of what you say focuses on personal satisfaction in regard to premarital sex—not obedience to God’s will.  Attention to the latter was the focus of the blog.  

I strongly disagree with the statement that “expecting your people to remain virgins until their later 20s or further is totally unrealistic" or that “virginity is overrated.”  Both undermine the ability of young people to remain virgins before marriage and implicitly question God’s standards for purity.  Although remaining a virgin before marriage is undoubtedly more challenging now than it was when the mean marrying age was in the teens, it is by no means impossible.   Regardless of how the world changes around us, God’s law has not changed.  It is for this reason that we are called a peculiar people and challenged to live “holy and Godly” lives in the end times (2 Peter 3:11-12).  There was never any biblical promise that purity was an easy or socially acceptable task.  Obedience, in any form, is challenging—especially in a sexually oversaturated culture.

It is incorrect that virginity has always been only a female trait (please see earlier comment by Nic) and I find it disturbing that your basis for disvaluing virginity is centered on a Middle Eastern cultural discrimination.  Using this as your example suggests that Western culture--fraught with emotional devastation, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and rampant sexual deviation--is somehow a superior solution to the difficulty of living a pure life.  It is not.  In fact, the problems inherent in a culture that openly rejects sexual purity are broader and more serious.  Namely, respect for God and faith in the goodness of His law are being ignored, the family unit is dissolving, and public health issues are running amuck.

 What I find severely lacking in your commentary is the attention to the notion of obedience and the acceptance of personal responsibility.  The statues that God has given us for purity were given for our own benefits to protect us from the wages of sin (which are prolific by your own admission). The responsibility for guiding a young person towards or against a decision for abstinence should not be based upon scare tactics or a high school health class.  Your suggestion that either would serve as a more convincing argument than the Bible suggests that young people are unable to make choices based upon their relationship with Jesus Christ.  This is untrue.  Self control is not something that not all young people find abhorrent.  Many exercise it NOT because of fear of financial disparity, or misunderstanding of the time constraints of parenthood, or fear of unwanted pregnancy.  The knowledge that many young people possess about God’s law is vast.  Often, they are not given the credit they deserve.  Suggesting that a young person would be unable to choose purity based on his relationship with God only confirms this.

Finally, you state that “the greatest insurance for virginity is the young person to value him or herself and their future.”  Such a thought is grossly unreflective of what the desire of a Christian should be—to direct their life under the will of God, not self.  Although other means may serve as effective supplements, the greatest insurance for virginity is a Christian young person’s love for God and the desire to serve Him through obedience—nothing else.

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Shayna, your idealism is to be praised. However, my years have made me much more a pragmatist. The question of how are we to address the more than 50% of young people who are your age or older who are no longer virgins? Are they great sinners (is there a hierarchy of sins)? BTW, what scripture (I didn't notice any) are you referring to that demands virginity prior to marriage? Betrothal, similar to our engagements today, are mentioned in the Bible, but I don't recall in the Ten Commandments anything addressing virginity for either male or female. It is very noticeable that in the OT most of the males mentioned had several wives and/or concubines, and there is nothing said to condemn that practice. Women, however, had a very secondary state, not even being mentioned except when married or giving birth. Even Abraham pimped his wife to save his skin, and daughters were married off to ensure tribal peace. Please give us the biblical support for your thesis.

How do you get to virginity from "purity" which is used in the texts you give? Jesus said that one who had lust in his heart had committed adultery. Would you wish to marry someone who had no physical desire (frequently called "lust")? Do you not feel comfortable with someone who has any physical desires? Surely, we all have and must use control, but do you believe that most young people, even SDAs who are engaged will refrain from sexual intimacy until marriage today? Wishful thinking. And, with this belief, will they feel like a great sinner if they are not virgins at the altar? Should they wear a scarlet letter? A small SDA church near me recently required a young female member to confess before the entire congregation her unmarried pregnant state and beg for her membership. This was the result of such thinking regarding the "worst of sins" for a young girl. Hester Pryne is still alive among us!

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com Elaine asked the following question: "BTW, what scripture (I didn't notice any) are you referring to that demands virginity prior to marriage?" To answer Elaine's question we need a Hebrew scholar. My understanding is that the original Hebrew term used in connection with the Seventh Commandment included all physical sexual impurity and was not restricted to adultery. Jesus expanded this to include even impure thoughts. Nevertheless, we must distinguish between impure thoughts and the physical expression of the same. No woman has ever got pregnant because someone had committed adultery with her in his heart. The way I understand the Seventh Commandment of the Decalogue is this: Nobody should engage in sexual activity unless such person is ready to assume the responsibility connected with parenthood. There is no fail proof method to prevent pregnancy one hundred percent of the times. The Seventh Commandment was designed for the protection of everybody's interest, but it was programmed especially for the benefit of the unborn. Let's not forget that first came the sexual revolution of the sixties, and a decade later the legalization of abortion, which lead to the death of 50 million unborn babies. We need to love sinners, and the worst sinners are the ones who need God's love channelled through human beings the most. Nevertheless, we need to remind sinners that, although there is forgiveness, there are undeniable consequences for breaking God's commands. King David was forgiven for his great sin, but he paid a heavy penalty for breaking two of God's commandments. We need to show a forgiving spirit without encouraging young people to disregard what the Lord designed for their happyness. The killing of the innocent is the direct result of promiscuity and the disregard of what the Lord ordained for the benefit of humanity. The enormity of sin is not contingent of how many people are guilty of a disregard of God's Law. Even if 100 percent of young Adventists had lost their virginity before marriage, the disregard of God's Commandment would be still wrong. In the Old Testament there was a penalty imposed on someone who engaged in sexual intercourse with a virgin. He was forced to pay a heavy fine, he was required to marry her, and he lost his right to divorce her as long as they lived [See Deut. 22:29].

"My understanding is that the original Hebrew term used in connection with the Seventh Commandment included all physical sexual impurity and was not restricted to adultery. Jesus expanded this to include even impure thoughts." Adultery in both testaments always referred to taking another man's wife. In that culture, women were the property of either their father or husband and when was a man ever punished for adultery? In the story in John (not original but added later), the woman "taken in adultery" had to have had a partner, yet he was never mentioned; leading to the conclusion that only women could be adultresses. Because women had no status apart from father or husband, it was virtually impossible, other that prostitution (which men frequented without punishment) for a woman NOT to be a virgin before marriage.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Elaine: If, as you claim, adultery refers strictly to "taking another's man wife," then how do you explain Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:32 which reads: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

How come Jesus used the term "fornication" [porneia] instead of "adultery" in reference to a married woman? Didn't you say in a previous comment that "fornication" refers to sexual misconduct between unmarried individuals? How can a married woman engage in fornication. Wouln'd said sexual misconduct be described as adultery?

It seems to me that for Jesus, the term fornication was equated with adultery. My understanding is that the word fornication describes all inapropriate sexual acts, for which reason Jesus felt at liberty to include adultery in ones' heart as a violation of the Sixth Commandment. I have read in another blog, in Spanish, a Hebrew scholar argue that the Hebrew term for adultery had the connotation of fornication.

Perhaps this is why Wesley wrote the following comment about Exodus 20:14: "Thou shalt not commit adultery - This commandment forbids all acts of uncleanness, with all those desires, which produce those acts and war against the soul."

If there had been another translation of "adultery" from the Hebrew, why did not the translators do so? Adultery, as Jesus said, involved a "wife" (Matt. 5:32) " My understanding is that the word fornication describes all inapropriate sexual acts" Where in the Bible is the term "adultery" used concerning a single woman? That is your private interpretation, but again, that is not what the various translations say. Reading one's own ideas into the text is adulterating the text: eisegesis.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Elaine,

Is it wrong to used the English dictionary when reading Scripture? Don't Bible translators use the English dictionary when performing their translating work? Notice how my dictionary defines the terms "fornication" and "adultery."

Fornication: "Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other."

Adultery: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband."

Now consider Jesus' statement: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."

Heres is my question: Why did Jesus describe the woman's adultery as "fornication."? She was a married woman, and according to the dictionary definition, fornication applies to sexual intercourse between unmarried individuals? How can a married woman be guilty of fornication? Since she is already married, the only way her infidelity can be described is as adultery! Where did I go wrong?

You state that "Reading one's own ideas into the text is adulterating the text." Please, explain to me how my question to you can be correctly interpreted as adulterating the text! Your suggestion blows my mind! I am using the Enslish dictionary, the English Bible, and common sense! Where is my mistake?

The only conclusion I can draw from the above is that in Jesus mind, both adultery and fornication had the same connotation! When I combine this with the scholar who stated that the Hebrew term for adultery in the Decalogue has a wider meaning than simply adultery, then I conclude that this makes sense, since for Jesus fornication and adultery seem to have had similar meanings.

As the father of two daughters of dating age, one thing I have tried to instill in them, not to be afraid of showing affection. The church we attended had a very active Youth Group. The Youth Leader ended up dating the Senior pastor's daughter. However, while purity of dating couples was preached from the pulpit, no one saw how the Youth Pastor and Senior Pastor's daughter relationship developed, for fear of PDA (Public Display of Affection) and the varied definitions in the heads of the parishioners and the parents of the youth he led. Hey are we talking nudity here Shayna, intercourse, above the belt/below the belt lines drawn. The example of these two and their relationship, certainly was not out there for the youth to emulate because of others opinion on dating practices. I had an experience on the campus of Andrews University, as I escorted my date to the gym for the Saturday night entertainment. As we came to a high curb, I placed my hand on her side to make sure she safely maneuvered the obstical without a twisted ankle, only to be met with, "Be careful now!" as if she saw it as something sexual. Needless to say, I didn't ask her out on a second date. This sort of prudishness, I propose is or was rampant among SDA youth at least when I was dating. I hope that my daughters have a little healthier view of the male/female courting/dating ritual. Regards, Douglas

Elaine, whether a man could be considered adulterous in Christ's time, I think you have wrong. The Jewish leaders sure had it wrong and had emulated it to the Jewish people. But the "scriptures", didn't exempt men from the Decalogue. Where would you suppose that, except from presupposing what the social constraints of the time were, right or wrong. The Decalogue, certainly makes no male/female distinction. Regards, Douglas

Douglas, "scripture didn't exempt people from the Decalogue" but there is no mention of wives therein.  Even the fourth, mentions daughters, servants and animals but nothing about wives--which in their culture was the only position for a female.  Daughters were the property of their father until married, and then became the property of the husband.    

If the Decalogue makes no male/female distinction, it also never mentions wives, only maid servants and daughters.  Adultery is predicated on a married state before it can be declard sinful, and in that commandment it never specifies premarital sex.

 The recent "Christianity Today (Aug. 2008) has an interesting article by Donna Freitas, religion professor at Boston University who has written a book "Sex and the Soul".

Several cogent comments from her by questioners: 

"Q.  You argue that purity culture is the dominant mode of thinking about sexuality on evangelical campuses.  Why do you find it problematic?

 A.  Both young men and women within purity culture experience enormous pressure to erase sexual desire completely.  What happens when they don't?  What happens when they fall short or make a mistake?  It can have a shattering effect on their relationship with God, and, often, their relationship with the larger community.  For both men and women this leaves them silent.    

A.  Then there's the issue of "ring by spring, or your money back" which I encountered across the board at the evangelical college.  It is largely something that falls on women's shoulders.  In purity cultures, college is a place where women are supposed to find a husband....it almost seems more than their education.  I encountered a real fear among women that they wouldn't have that ring.

 A review of her book by a professor at  George Fox University says:

"At the spiritual schools, religious beliefs did not influence sexual choices much at all.  Seventy-three percent of students at the Catholic schools said they had experienced oral, anal, and vaginal sex; 79% reported the same thing at the private nonreligious schools, and 85% reported this at the public schools.  At the evangelical schools, students, too have sex (35% said they had experienced the three various methods; but they were more likely to have sex within committed, loving relationships--and to later feel guilty about it.

"If the extreme at the spiritual college is frequent casual sex, the extreme at the evangelical college is suppression of sexual expression and not helping students HEAL or FIND WHOLENESS when they FALL FROM GRACE.

"...Most of my students do not believe their first kiss should be on their wedding night."  The author of this book criticizes spiritual schools' failture to help students think about sex or spirituality....A challenge for Christian students is to figure out how to be sexual while single."

 Do we honestly expect men or women to remain celibate until marriage, not matter their age; and if they never marry, what then?  Celibacy doesn't work for those who take the vows--see the Roman Catholic priests who did. 

 

Worth noting:  Texas spends $17 million a year--more than any other state--on abstinence-only sex education programs.  The rate of Texas high school students having sexual intercourse, according to federal statistics, stands at 52.9%, compared witth 47.8 percent nationally (Houston Chronicle). 

If virginity is the concern, ONLY, how many readers remember the "frumpy" black lady who use to be our Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders  who got in trouble for suggesting Outercourse in premarital relations. What is it:

www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/health/contraceptives/outercourse.htm

Or is the issue purity? and if so by who's definition, Shayna? And where would this violate the definition of purity?

Regards, Douglas

Dear Douglas,

You will find that the source of the definitions I use will always be the Bible, unless otherwise noted.  Please refer to the third to last paragraph in the blog for specific definitions of purity in response to "where would outercourse violate the definition of purity?"

Regarding your previous comment, I am genuinely sorry that you experienced such negative situations during your own dating life.  However, I never said that physical affection was to be forbidden before marriage.  My attention to the establishment of physical boundaries implicitly suggests that affection is a normal part of most dating relationships.  If I had said that physical boundaries were unnecessary, this would either have suggested that I thought any behavior prior to marriage was acceptable or that there should be no touching whatsoever (and hence no need for boundaries).

 It is also worth noting that decisions about physical boundaries should not be made exclusively by attempting to emulate the behaviors of others.  As you point out, many (such as your daughters' youth leader) are influenced unduly by the opinions of others.  The burden for establishment of physical boundaries falls to a young adult couple and their relationship with God, which should lead them to their own interpretation of Scripture.  For teenagers, the advice of their parents should be supreme. 

I commend your open communication with your own daughters, but as a realistic young adult, I would be hasty to add that there should be some discussion about respect for one's own body and for God.  If a young person (male or female) does not have their own physical boundaries established, it is inevitable that they will be taken advantage of.  Whatever your views about premarital sex are, I would hope that you are encouraging your daughters to be safe in whatever they do. 

Best regards,

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Shayna,

Before his death, I had a chance to speak with Charles Wittschibe (sp), who wrote "God Invented Sex". I found him a very pragmatic individual/counsellor, and his answer, I got from him wasn't a typical Bible answer. Sorry I can't reveal the topic. But no Bible texts.

My point, kids, that I know, if they just got a list of Bible texts when I knew of their pre marital activity, or was counselling them on something related to dating, would probably be turned off from a list of arcane Bible texts from a different time and culture,  in a modern setting. You may not agree, but there are many Christian authors and counsellors that may, in their mind, let the Lord lead, but advise practically.

 Regards, Douglas

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Douglass,

I find a lot of pragmatism in the Bible. Regarding purity, I think there is hardly anything more practical than abstainging from adultery and fornication.

Now regarding outercourse, it is better than the alternative, but God demands even purity of thought. A very high ideal attainable only through the power of the Holy Spirit. Most kids when they start dating do not understand the power of sexual attraction. This reminds me of a young couple who started with outercourse, then prayed, and ended with intercourse, of course.

Nic,

Purity, in the case of an engaged couple heading for their wedding night, preparing for THE EVENT, isn't by Biblical standards thinking about that act, sinful?

Isn't that why so many conservative fundamentalist kids get screwed up about healthy sex?  

Regards, Douglas

Douglas,

I am sorry that you found the advice presented here to be impractical. However, as a young person writing for other young adults, I can assure you that not everyone finds the Bible to be "arcane" or irrelevant. By your own admission, other (more practical) Christian relationship advisors are still using the Bible as their basis, even if they do not reveal so overtly. Style of presentation will always differ between counselors, but as I have mentioned in previous comments to you, I cannot provide an exacting list of dos and don'ts for my readers, no matter how much they may want it. Obedience and application of Scripture are unique to each individual.

It will always be your (and every reader's) prerogative to agree or disagree with what is written here, but in regards to something I consider as fundamental as application of Biblical truth, I simply wish for you that you may find whatever you are seeking.

Best regards,

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Duglass,

 Here is my view of what the Bible considers sexual purity: Refusing to cherish  and to nourish the desire to commit adultery or fornication. Thinking about sex is not a violation of the Seventh Commandment if the individual is not cherishing and nourishing the desire to break God's Law. Jesus did not say that looking at a woman is a sin, but rather looking at a woman with covetous desires.  

Nic,

I have heard many a story of couples paired up with others, unmarried, that looking across the room make a connection. You suppose they might be thinking about what it would be like to have sex with that individual. Is that sin, fornication, since the thought entered the person's head seeing the form of the other? 

Regards, Douglas