Young people in Japan are not only losing interest in marriage. They are losing interest in relationships altogether. And they are reportedly taking the next step: Losing interest in sex. [Read more…]
Rod Dreher, a Christian writer of the Orthodox persuasion, has written a provocative article for the American Conservative that is getting a lot of attention entitled Sex after Christianity. He raises the question of whether Christianity can even survive once its assumptions about sexual morality are jettisoned. The short answer is, of course Christianity will survive. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it, let alone sexual transgressions. Missing in this discussion is that Christianity is about Christ, the Gospel, and the forgiveness of sins, not establishing a particular kind of cultural influence. Nevertheless, Dreher documents a “cosmological” shift that may well diminish the cultural presence of Christianity. Still, read this article. We’ve got to talk about it. Read the whole article, but I’ll post excerpts after the jump. (And see my thoughts at the end.) [Read more…]
You have GOT to read A. N. Wilson’s article in the London Mail entitled ” I’ve lived through the greatest revolution in sexual mores in our history, the damage it’s done appalls me”. An excerpt, with my emphases:
“I have been divorced. Although I was labelled a Young Fogey in my youth, I imbibed all the liberationist sexual mores of the Sixties as far as sexual morality was concerned.
I made myself and dozens of people extremely unhappy — including, of course, my children and other people’s children. . . . [Read more…]
An evangelical conclave has recommended that churches encourage their single members to take contraceptives as a way to cut down on Christians getting abortions:
Two weeks ago, younger evangelical leaders gathered in Washington D.C. to reflect about the shape Christianity should take in the world. Q, the conference hosted by Gabe Lyons, is one of the more interesting spots in the evangelical landscape. Self-conscious in its cultural (which is to say, not political) orientation, conference attendees are an interesting cross-section of the evangelical world. Some might be emergent, others might be Reformed, but no one talks much about all that. It’s concern about social issues, rather than distinctive theological ones, that attendees seem to gather around.
In a breathtaking moment of unity, however, conference attendees affirmed that churches should advocate for contraceptives for the single people in their midst. After a panel discussion on the best ways to reduce abortions in the church (tacit answer: contraception), an instant poll put the question to attendees: “Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” The question is ambiguously worded (Advocate how? From the pulpit? Which twentysomethings? All of them?). But even so, 70 percent of respondents understood enough to say “yes.”
So if churches can’t influence their members enough to teach them to not have sex or, failing that, to not have abortions, why do they think they can influence them to use contraceptives? That is for starters. How else is this problematic?
Alan Wisdom has a brilliant article in Salvo, bringing back a word we need again and showing how different “just living together” and marriage really are:
In ancient times, there was an option for a man who desired a regular sex partner but did not wish to marry her. He could take a low-status woman as a concubine. He could enjoy her company as long as it pleased him, and he could dismiss her at any time. The man made no promises and signed no contract; consequently, the concubine had few legal protections. Any children that she bore would have an inferior legal status.
The early Church fought long and hard against concubinage. It insisted that such a sexual relationship, without the permanent and total commitment expressed in marriage vows, was immoral and unjust. Over the course of a thousand years, concubinage retreated into the shadows of social disapproval.
In the past 40 years, it seems, concubinage has come to light again under a different name. Like ancient concubinage, contemporary cohabitation is a deliberately ambiguous relationship. The partners make no promises and have no legal obligations to one another. The arrangement has no specified duration and can be terminated at a moment’s notice. Those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status. Their children, on average, do not fare as well as children born to married couples.
Defenders of cohabitation portray it as just a more flexible form of marriage. The love is the same as in marriage, they say; all that is missing is “a piece of paper,” the marriage certificate. Some see cohabitation as a “trial marriage.” They assume that living together will confirm a couple’s compatibility and reduce the odds that a subsequent marriage might end in divorce.
Social science does not support any of these assertions. By every measure, cohabitation is a very different relationship from marriage. Marriages are formed by a series of decisive, publicly announced events: A proposal is made, it is accepted, an engagement is announced, friends and family gather for a wedding, vows and rings are exchanged, and two formerly single persons are declared to be married. By contrast, many couples quietly drift into cohabitation. They gradually spend more time together, one moves his or her possessions piece by piece into the other’s residence, one allows his or her lease to expire, and eventually they realize that they are living together full-time.
The two relationships differ dramatically in durability. The average marriage lasts several decades; the average cohabitation, only 15 months. Because their time horizons are longer, married people are much more likely to invest in one another. Husbands and wives almost always pool their assets. They have a single household budget that does not separate “his” and “her” money. They take responsibility for each other’s debts and inherit each other’s estates.
Read the rest of it, the differences between concubinage and marriage go on and on. Pity the poor concubine. Once again we see ourselves progressing at breakneck speed back to primitivism.
UPDATE: Of course there are differences between the ancient practice of concubinage and today’s “living together,” but the point of similarity is that both are a type of “marriage lite.” Having or being a concubine bears some similarity to marriage and exists parallel to that institution but is easily dissolvable.
Our culture pretends to be free and easy about sex, but we really aren’t. I was kind of astonished that all of Tiger Woods’ multitudinous endorsement ads have been pulled from prime time TV after his auto accident provoked some nine women (at last count) to admit committing adultery with the golf superstar. Our culture remains capable of moral disapproval over sexual sins! On the other hand, our culture remains pruriently interested in hearing the salacious details of those sexual sins, as evidenced by the current media frenzy over the matter. We are repelled and compelled at the very same time!