"Each generation refights the crucial battles and either brings new vitality to the ideals or allows them to decay. . .the moral order is not something enshrined in historic documents or stowed away like the family silver. It is a living, changing thing, and never any better than the generation that holds it in trust. A society is continuously recreated, for good or ill, by its members."{1}

Nowhere has the principle of a generation refighting crucial moral battles been seen more vividly than in the present sexual attitudes and behaviors of Americans. For some time a growing nationwide shift has been evident in attitudes toward morality. . .a shift that amounts, as many see it, to a 'crisis in morality.'"{2}

There exists today among Americans a wide variety of opinions about personal standards of sexual behavior, what is "right" and what is "wrong." Few can express clearly and definitely what is expected, what is forbidden, and why. On one side are the Hugh Hefners and Larry Flynts and others who have encouraged and capitalized upon America's fixation with the sexual themes that permeate films, television, theater, advertising, and now, the Internet. Since the Sixties, this new, blatant "spirit" has gone by different names: the Sexual Revolution, the New Hedonism, the Legitimization of Pleasure, the Changing Mores.

On the other hand, the culture still contains remnants of Victorian thinking, with all its prudish and repressive snares, an era when sexual discussion and activity were not the topics of polite conversation, and when excessive modesty made even the sight of a female ankle wildly erotic.

With such divergent forces at work, is it any wonder that much uncertainty exists, particularly among young people, about what is proper sexual behavior? Given modern mobility and affluence, incessant media bombardment on sexual themes, the availability of cheap and efficient contraceptives, and the extended period of ten or more years between puberty and marriage, the average young person experiences may pressures--from within and without--in the formulation of personal sexual standards and behavior.

Sexual codes in America have been generally classified into one of the following five categories, according to Dr. Evelyn Duvall, well-known author on family relations:

1. Chastity before marriage: Sexual activity belongs only in the marriage relationship; obligations go with rights.

2. Chastity of women, but not of men: As a man, I set my own standards; but when I marry, it will be to a virgin.

3. Sexual freedom between lovers: When two people really love one another, what they do is their own business. Marriage is just a technicality.

4. Sexual permissiveness: A fellow is entitled to anything that a female allows; anything goes as long as it's fun.

5. Sexual irresponsibility: Who am I to say what is right and wrong? I do, therefore, whatever I feel like at the moment.{3}

Which of these five alternatives is closest to your personal sexual standard? No matter whether your "standard" is one of the above or some variation or combination thereof, the fact that you must choose some standard cannot be ignored. Sex is here to stay, and it remains a very basic force in each of our lives. We cannot ignore its presence any more than we can other ordinary human drives.

Let us explore some of these sexual perspectives within a Biblical framework, enabling a person to think through the implications of the various alternatives with a view to selecting a personal sexual ethic which includes not merely biological or emotional factors, but also on intelligent, Christian ones.

Sex and Love

In our quest for an answer to the all-important question of which ethic best suits the Christian, we need to face squarely the relationship of the physical act of sexual intercourse to the more intangible, but not less important, aspects of a meaningful relationship between a man and a woman.

For starters, Is "having sex" the same as "making love?" Modern case studies, psychological insights, church teachings, and Biblical guidance on the subject suggest not. As psychoanalyst Erich Fromm notes, "to love a person productively implies to care and to feel responsible for his life, not only for his physical powers but for the growth and development of all his human powers." {4}

If sex is merely a physical thing, then true and complete sexual satisfaction should be experienced by masturbating, or by other forms of autoeroticism. However, such is not the case. Alternatives to normal sexual intercourse may satisfy physically, but definitely not emotionally. Meaningful sexual activity involves the physical union of a man and a woman in a relationship of mutual caring and communication/intimacy. The precise question is, How much of the latter two components should be involved to make it "meaningful"?

But the next question follows: What do we mean by mutual care and intimacy? What about a man sent to Tokyo by his firm for a month with time on his hands in the evening? How much caring and communication exists when he has sex with a prostitute or with some woman he met in a bar--even though he treats her kindly and expresses his appreciation with gifts or money?

Or what about the experience of a woman married to an alcoholic husband who has degenerated into something of a vegetable with permanent brain damage and with no interest in much of anything, including his wife? To alleviate her deep need and loneliness could she be blamed for having an extra-marital affair with a man for two years and find the expressions of love, care, and intimacy she craves?

Both cases are "out-of-wedlock" situations, yet totally different in degree of care, though the physical activity is the same. And while we probably have more empathy for the woman's unhappy situation, both cases remain outside an acceptable, Biblical framework.

Perhaps the world of prostitution best explains the Great Divide between sex (physical) and love (physical/plus?). Prostitutes are highly proficient in sexual matters. They know all the techniques. They are convenient, available, and undemanding. They require no "wooing" skills on the part of the man and take one partner after another. Here is the supreme example of mechanical sexual function without care for the other person. Can prostitutes and their partners really experience meaningful, sexual love?

While every person has the natural, physical desire for sexual intercourse, it is accompanied with other intangible, but very important factors to attain the greatest sexual satisfaction--the deep, and real, desire to know and to be known, to love and be loved. This is the true quest for intimacy in a relationship, and sexual intercourse represents only one of the necessary ingredients that allows us to experience it.

A maximum sexual relationship exists where mutual communication, affection, understanding, and trust are present, and two people have committed themselves to each other in a permanent bond. The more of these qualities present, the deeper the intimacy and the more meaningful the relationship. Time only appreciates the value of such a union. The longer it lasts, the more it is cherished, because it is, like the Hope Diamond, unique, one-of-a-kind. Its exclusiveness and uniqueness is what makes it so special to the two people involved. To spread the intimacy "around" to a variety of sexual partners dilutes and scatters (in little doses to a number of people) the totality of all the love, care, and intimacy one has to give.

This is the choice and the real challenge facing young people today. If given the option of a hamburger at 5:00 or a filet mignon at 7:30, are there good reasons to forego the hamburger and wait for the filet? Why not both? Why not take the hamburger now and the filet later?

This "both" mentality reflects the rationale of those who encourage sexual activity outside of marriage. It is my conviction, however--through personal experience and hundreds of counseling situations--that it is not possible to have both without encountering problems later. Too many hamburgers now tends to ruin one's taste for filet mignon later on. A popular song, "Mambo No. 5" by Lou Bega, dramatically illustrates this:

"A little bit of Monica in my life
A little bit of Erica by my side
A little bit of Rita is all I need
A little bit of Sandy in the sun
A little bit of Mary all night long
A little bit of Jessica here I am
A little bit of you makes me your man. . . I do all
To fall in love with a girl like you
You can't run and you can't hide
You and me gonna touch the sky"

The accumulation of stored-up sexual memories one has experienced with multiple partners creates a composite, mental "phantom" which that person brings along with him/her to every sexual encounter with a spouse. The more vast the experience, the greater the likelihood that the unfortunate partner will not, by comparison, be able to measure up in sexual performance to his/her looming, unseen rival!

Biological Argument

Now let us examine the various arguments posed to justify and rationalize sexual activity before and outside of marriage. We will analyze the data of each argument briefly and explore its general implications so the reader can decide which course of action will provide the best path to the most meaningful and satisfying sexual experience with a life partner.

Perhaps the most common reason used to justify sexual activity of all kinds is the simple fact that the sex drive is a basic, biological one, along with hunger, thirst, and survival. The argument is as old as the Bible where Paul states in I Corinthians 6:13, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food." The Corinthians were using the biological argument to justify their immorality, but Paul explained that the analogy to the sex appetite was (and is) fallacious. Humans cannot live without food, air, or water. But we can live without sex.

Nature has several things to say on this point. First, God has built into the natural world a mechanism for sexual release (quite apart from any human initiative): nocturnal emissions--orgasmic release while asleep. Second, that nature rejects human promiscuity is dramatically illustrated by sexually-transmitted diseases (STD). The AIDSA menace world-wide is killing millions today. It is estimated that one third of the population of Sub-Sahara Africa is HIV positive! To make matters worse, new strains of gonorrhea and syphilis are appearing today that stubbornly resist antibiotics which previously provided adequate treatment.{5}

In stark contrast, couples who confine sex to their marriage partners face no such danger from disease. Further, we can safely conclude that abstinence does not impair one's health. Sociologist Robert Bell quips, "There appear to be no records of males hospitalized because girls refused to provide sexual outlets."{6}

While recognizing that human beings, as mammals, share many common genetic characteristics with cats, dogs, chimpanzees, etc., we do not find comparable sexual behavioral patterns in the animal world. A tomcat takes any female who will receive him, but he then wanders off to others while the female raises the young alone. Human sexuality is unique in that it not only includes, but transcends physical reproductive elements. It reaches an intimacy unknown in animals.

Statistical Argument

A second popular argument reasons that "Everyone is doing it." First, we must categorically deny that this is a true statement. Looking back to the Kinsey Report findings between 1948-53, it reported that 58% of the college-bound boys between 16-20 were without sexual experience and 80% of the twenty-one year-old unmarried women were virgins{7}. More recent studies{8} show significant increases of promiscuity among these populations, but no study says everyone is doing it.

Further, it is important to note that statistics do not reflect or establish moral values. Masters and Johnson in their findings have noted, "Is the frequency with which something happens a reliable indication of its value (or rightness)!" {9} Until recently the Papuan Tribe in the South Pacific had a 100% majority consensus that cannibalism was right! Does that make it right? A majority can be wrong or misguided. If a society sets the standards, those standards are subject to change with the whim and will of the majority. Therefore, in one generation (19th Century) slavery may be right and abortion wrong, while the next generation (20th Century) says slavery is "out" and abortion is "in." This serves to prove that making something legal does not necessarily make it moral.

In every school, college, or community, there are significant numbers of young people who are committed to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. Any young man or woman who wants to be one of them will have plenty of company. It is up to each person to decide where he or she will show up in the statistics.

Proof of Love Argument

A third argument suggests that intercourse demonstrates a proof of one's love for another. It supposedly symbolizes how much the other cares. One therefore exerts pressure upon the more reluctant partner to demonstrate a certain level of care for the other. Those reluctant partners who succumb to this pressure do so with the underlying hope that it will somehow cement the relationship and discourage the other from searching elsewhere for a less hesitant friend.

Any person who insists on making sex the ultimate proof of a genuine relationship isn' t saying "I love you," but rather, "I love it"! True love concerns itself with the well-being of the other person and would not interpret hesitation in such a selfish way. Furthermore, the person adopting this practice develops a pattern of demonstrating love by purely sexual responsiveness. Ultimately he or she enters marriage with somewhat of a distortion as to what real intimacy means, to say nothing of having to deal with the memories of previous lovers. Some behaviors are irreversible, and this process is like trying to unscramble an egg. Once it's done, it's done.

The broader perspective sees sex as an integral and important part of a meaningful relationship--but not the totality of it. Remembering this will help any individual to make the right decision to refrain from sexual involvement if a potential partner puts on the pressure to make sex the test of a meaningful relationship. In this regard, Hugh Hefner, the creator of the Playboy empire, said he didn't believe in promiscuity, just "meaningful" relationships! {11}

Instructive at this point are the comments of Cynthia Maddox, a former special girl of Hefner's. When her "meaningful" relationship with Hefner declined, she began to see a psychiatrist. As Hugh Hefner's ex-girlfriend and a Playboy cover girl, she found many men looking on her as a sort of trophy-in short a sex symbol. But she felt much different inside. She said, "Sometimes. . .God, I don't feel like I have any identity of my own. . .I would like someone who really notices me, really can respect me, really can remember things about me-some man who thinks about me when I am away from him." (11) In short, Cynthia perceived the fallacy of sexual responsiveness as "proof" of love: she still hungers for intimacy and self-esteem. She gave sex, but she wants to love and be loved. She wants to give herself sexually in a caring relationship.

When a couple insists on a premature beginning for sexual intercourse, their interpersonal communications tends to slack off. Ironically, in their coming together sexually, the couple may lose the very thing they really wanted. . .intimacy and companionship.

Psychological Argument

This is also a popular one and closely tied to the biological argument discussed above. Here's the question: "Is sexual restraint bad for you?" A student paper, Perspective, published by two combined religious fellowships at Southern Methodist University, gave the following comment in a paper dealing with a "realistic approach to sex on campus":

Psychological problems may be caused by fear of being found out, lack of respect for the other person, or severe conflict between moral training and sexual reality (permissiveness). Part of the couple's responsibility is recognizing these disturbances and taking whatever action is necessary to either alleviate or live with these feelings. (12) (parenthesis and underline mine).

Nothing in the article indicates what is meant by "alleviate." The implied options are to alleviate guilt feelings, by somehow lowering one's standards and developing indifference to previous moral training, or learning to cope with feelings of guilt. The article makes no suggestion, however, as to how this might be accomplished. Obviously, one course of action that alleviates guilt is abstinence; i.e., preventing guilt by deciding not to engage in a behavior that produces it!

Studies show that men and women who experiment with sex outside of the permanent commitment intended to accompany and give content to it are the real candidates for a crack-up. (13) Sublimating one's sex drive is not unhealthy. Recognized authorities agree that the learning of sublimation is important for the proper emotional development of any person. In sublimation the process of sexual and aggressive energy are displaced by non-sexual and non-destructive goals. Sublimation becomes beneficial in making one ready to accept substitute gratifications and to become more adaptable to the circumstances of life.

Guilt, however, unlike sublimation, can produce devastating results in human behavior. It is anger turned inward, producing depression, a lowered self-esteem, and fatigue. Researchers find the highest prevalence of nervous symptoms among those with the least sexual restraint. Further, chastity and virginity contribute very little to sexual problems; unsatisfying relationships, guilt, hostility toward the opposite sex, and low self-esteem do. To put it another way, There are no scars where there have been no wounds.

In this pleasure-crazed society, some persons need no further justification for sexual activity beyond the fact that it's fun. "If it feels good, do it!" says the bumper sticker. No one, including I, would deny that sex is fun. Skin against skin is pleasant.

Perhaps the "Epicurean" approach to life was best expressed by Ernest Hemingway when he said, "What is moral is what I feel good after and what is immoral is what I feel bad after." (14) The real question is, "How long after?" The "fun" syndrome forces us to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate. In my counseling experience I've never met any individuals who were sorry for postponing their sexual activity until they were able to give themselves to a special person in marriage. I have, however met and counseled with scores of people who regretted that they did not. Here are two examples from comment cards after I gave a lecture on this subject:

"I started having sex at a very young age and have been active throughout the years. If I could do it all over again, I think I would save myself."

"I've been so many places and _____ (had intercourse with) so many that I've begun to look at girls as objects instead of people. I don't know if I can find my way back."

Both of these were virile young college men. The second poured out his regrets to me personally, his eyes filled with bitter tears. Obviously during their sexual encounters and experiences these men were feeling good and having fun. The passing of time, however, altered their perspective, and now they had changed their minds. Can we learn from the wisdom of other's experiences? It takes maturity to do so.

The sex act itself is no guarantee of fun. Initial sexual experiences outside of marriage are often disappointing, because of high anxiety and guilt levels. Fear of discovery, haste, and lack of interpersonal commitment and communication all combine to spoil some of the fun. Further, there is no way to avoid the exploitation of someone in the relationship, if it's just for fun. Sometimes one person's "pleasure" is another person's pain. No one likes to be or feel used. Girls with striking beauty often are, and feel that they have been. They face the same dilemma that very wealthy people do: "Am I getting this attention for me or for what I have?

Marilyn Monroe was a sex symbol for millions. She said, "People took a lot for granted; not only could they be friendly, but they could suddenly get overly friendly and expect an awful lot for very little." (15) She felt used, someone to be had, without attempting to establish an appropriate relationship with her as a person. She ended up naked and alone, with an empty bottle of sleeping pills beside a telephone which never rang. Her beautiful body lay unclaimed at the county morgue-a tragic end to a tragic life. Were the fame and fun worth it? Evidently she thought not.

Experiential Argument

Another argument sometimes expressed is a desire on the part of an individual not to appear like a sexual novice on the wedding night. One answer to this is to have already had enough sexual experience prior to marriage so that one brings practice, not theory, to the initial sexual encounter on wedding night. I remember a conversation with my young son, who was concerned about this. How would he know what to do when t the time came? I responded with some questions. "Did anyone teach you how to breathe?" "No," he said. "Then, when that time comes, sex will come just as naturally. You'll know what to do." This was, in my judgment, a simplified but true statement. The body was designed to perform sexually and will do so given the opportunity.

This is not to say that sexual skill cannot be gained through experience. It is to say that every skill acquired by humans must have a beginning point. What time is more appropriate to begin the development of sexual skills than at the outset of the marriage union, when two individuals are placed into a stable context of communication and care? If the idea of two virgins on their wedding night brings amusement to our minds instead of admiration, it is actually a sad commentary on how far we have slipped as individuals and as a culture.

It must be emphasized again that healthy sexual adjustment depends much more on communication than technique. Satin sheets, ointments, vibrators, and knowledge of anatomy and multiple positions will not provide satisfactory sexual experience where love and commitment and care are not present. World-famous sex therapists Masters and Johnson in The Pleasure Bond found:

"Of all the recent notions about sex that have been given publicity in recent years, none is more harmful than the idea that a poor sexual relationship can be 'cured' by learning technique. . .nothing good is going to happen in bed between a husband and wife unless good things have been happening between them before they go to bed. There is no way for a good sexual technique to remedy a poor emotional relationship. For a man and a woman to be delighted with each other in bed, both must want to be in that bed. . .with each other." (16)

In other words, a deeply committed couple with no sexual experience is far ahead of a sexually-experienced couple with shallow and tentative commitment, as far as the marriage's future sexual success is concerned. Studies bear this out and, while many could be cited, one by the American Institute of Family Relations concluded:

"Neither delayed marriage nor lack of previous sexual experience is a hindrance to a woman's good sexual adjustment in marriage. . .previous sexual experience of a woman is no help to her in making good sexual adjustment in her marriage." (17)

Interestingly enough, Redbook magazine in September of 1975 reported the findings by a professional sociologist of the most recent and extensive (100,000 women) study of female sexuality since the Kinsey Report. One of their findings startled many people:

"Sexual satisfaction is related significantly to religious belief. With notable consistency, the greater the intensity of a woman's religious convictions, the likelier she is to be highly satisfied with the sexual pleasures of marriage." (18)

Women with strong religious beliefs would generally expect to fall in high percentages in the category of sexual chastity before marriage. This study would tend to suggest that sexual activity before marriage detracts from, not contributes to, sexual responsiveness and enjoyment in marriage. It would also suggest that one road to sexual pleasure is the development of one's personal, spiritual life.

Compatibility Argument

A corollary to the experiential argument is the one concerning "sexual compatibility." The idea is, "How will I know if the shoe fits unless I first try it on?" This "try-before-you-buy" idea concerns many. Duvall aptly points out that the analogy breaks down when one realizes that a foot stays about the same size, but the human sex organs are wonderfully stretchable and adaptable. A woman's vagina can enlarge to accommodate the birth of a baby or to comfortably fit a male organ of any size. Physical compatibility is ninety-nine percent guaranteed, and the other one percent can become so through medical consultation and assistance.

Of greater importance is to test person-to-person compatibility. Sexual dysfunction (frigidity or impotence) is almost never physiologically based. It is psychologically produced. Sexual compatibility is a by-product of good emotional, psychological, and spiritual communication. Building bridges of love and mutual care in the non-physical facets of the relationship are the sure roads to a honeymoon that can last fifty or sixty years. A letter to Ann Landers emphasizes this point:

"My husband and I have been married over 50 years. We are in our early 70's. If George doesn't knock on my door once a week, I knock on his. Sometimes I have to knock for four or five minutes because his hearing isn't as good as it once was. But everything else is.-Still in Love." (19)

Contraceptive Argument

The SMU Perspective article cited above also comments on this issue:

"Pregnancy is hardly a problem if sufficient care is taken. The well-educated and affluent college student has at his disposal many devices to avoid this sort of trouble. Knowledge of ways and means is part of responsible action." (20)

So argue young moderns today. "Responsible action" takes the fear of pregnancy and disease out of casual, sexual activity and gives young people a virtual "green light." Actually, the light is at most pale green, and perhaps only yellow. The simple fact is that pregnancy remains a definite possibility. This is due to ignorance and naivete on the part of some couples, particularly the younger ones. Others, because of certain church backgrounds, believe contraceptives to be immoral and therefore refuse to use them. And some birth control methods are medically controlled and not readily attainable by the unmarried young, unless parents obtain them for their children (and many do!).

Nagging questions persist about the effectiveness of the pill. Blood clotting, skin blotching, jaundice, and depression are more common in women who use it. Women with vein diseases, family histories of cancer and high blood pressure must regularly consult with their physicians. The pill can produce hypertension in some women, as well as headaches, skin and hair disorders says Dr. Elizabeth Connell, Associate Director for Health Sciences of the Rockefeller Foundation and Chairman of the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood. (21) First hailed as virtually one-hundred per cent effective, Connell warned:

"Experience has tempered the initial enthusiasm. . .the ingestion of powerful hormones may exact a price: the pill is not entirely safe for all women; it may not always be reversible; it is not always effective; and it is not even simple for all women to use." (22)

Beyond the question of contraceptive use is the entire area of unwanted children. There are not good alternatives for children born to unmarried young people. The options facing the fact of such a pregnancy are: (1) to keep the child and rear it while single, (2) terminate the pregnancy with an abortion, (3) get married under duress, or (4) put the baby up for adoption. If the newborn in question could speak for itself, how happy and satisfied would it be about any of these possible futures? Do we have the right to deprive any child of a secure family setting and loving parents to supply its basic needs? Ironically, even severely-abused children choose to be with their parents over other alternatives. Parental love and security to a child are highly prized.

This points up the inescapable fact that sexual intimacy between young, unmarried couples is not exclusively their private affair. Others are involved-family, friends, and community. Sexual intercourse must take place within a mental context of responsibility and a view toward facing possible consequences. Those assuming the privileges of adult sexual behavior must also be willing to accept the responsibility and risks for their actions.

To illustrate, a "wino" may not want a hangover , but he wills himself one when he drinks too much. The point of moral decision for him actually occurs when he decided to drink more than he should, not when he is experiencing his splitting headache! The time of moral decision in sexual matters comes when a couple decides to have sex, not later when unforeseen circumstances have resulted in a pregnancy.

The Marital Argument Perhaps the strongest argument for premarital sex is the "marital argument", which says, "We are in love and plan to marry soon. So why should we wait?" When two people genuinely love each other and anticipate joining their lives together in marriage, it is even more difficult to practice sexual restraint, because the "sparks" really fly!

If a couple chooses to go ahead, there is the immediate release of sexual tensions; both achieve a sense of being desirable to each other, and there is some testing of compatibility. But for every gain there are some corresponding losses. Death, disease, accidents, and other unforeseen circumstances may change the marriage plans of a couple. Current studies show that from one-third to one-half of all engagements are broken. (23) Robert O. Blood Jr., in his standard work, Marriage, says that

"Intimacy produces more broken relationships than strengthened ones. More engagements were broken by Burgess and Wallin's couples who had intercourse than by those who did not. . .and the more frequent the intercourse, the larger the proportion of rings returned. (24)

Dr. Howard Hendricks, an authority on the family, comments that "The best way to mortgage your marriage is to play around at the door of marriage." (25) Loss of respect and intensity of feelings may occur, as well as guilt and dissatisfaction. On the other hand, restraint for a time adds excitement to the relationship and makes the honeymoon something very special, not just a "continuation" of already-established patterns.

Some couples also see little value in a public declaration of their marital intent, complaining about all the fuss over a license and a ceremony. "Why do I need a minister to say it's cool for us to live together? Love has married us," says twenty-two year-old Kathy.

But real love can unashamedly declare itself publicly. And several benefits result, not the least of which is the strengthening and deepening of personal commitment. Those who prefer no public declaration but rather seek anonymity may be saying something about the depth (or lack thereof) of their commitment to one another. Do they have their fingers crossed? Couples who are hesitant should carefully examine their personal motives to see why there is reluctance.

So far as the Bible is concerned, sexual intercourse is exclusively a married activity. (Genesis 2:24; Hebrews 13:4; I Corinthians 6:16). All sexual intercourse, whether outside of or before marriage is expressly forbidden. The biblical term for premarital sex is "fornication" (Greek: porneia). All thirty-eight references in the New Testament designate this practice as a sin against God.

In reality, a soon-to-be-married engaged couple that is already having intercourse has thereby consummated their marriage before God, and ought to legalize it before the state (if required) as soon as possible, since God commands Christians to be obedient to governmental regulations and laws (Romans 13:1; I Peter 2:13). Engaged couples, according to Paul, should either control their sexual drives, or marry:

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are wrong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry-it is no sin. . .(on the other hand) Whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well" (I Corinthians 7:36-37) (underline, parenthesis mine).

Intercourse, then, is not proper for engaged couples. They should either keep their emotions in check, or they should marry. And when they do engage in intercourse, they are married in God's eyes, and they should formalize that commitment legally, if it is the "Law of the Land" for them to do so.

Conclusion

We have examined the major arguments used by many to justify premarital sex. If these are the strongest evidences to validate sex outside of marriage, the case is weak. And one final thing should be said to those who stand on these arguments and practice the sexual behaviors they represent. Defenders of premarital (and extra-marital) sex must be brought face to face with their dilemma. In order to logically justify it, a man must be willing also to defend the right of another man to have sexual intercourse with his mother, sister, wife, or daughter before or during marriage. The same would be true of any woman concerning all of her male relatives.

Hugh Hefner, when discussing if he would want his daughter to be sexually promiscuous, said that he would not. He admitted, "Intellectually, I may think in a certain way; practically, I may act in another. . .I am and I remain a combination of incoherences that I uselessly try to reject." (26) The church isn't the only place where hypocrites may be found, is it?

Another story from Ann Landers" column may bring the point closer to home. A woman wrote telling about her college son's warning that he was bringing a girl home for the weekend. He said it would be very honest and mature of his parents if they would allow him and his girl to occupy his bedroom at home, since "we are shacked up here at school." The mother commented to Landers:

"My husband and I were stunned at Bill's request, but we tried not to show it. We told him we'd talk it over and let him know. We hit on a plan, enlisted the cooperation of a neighbor couple and called Bill back. His father said, 'Bring the girl. We'll do our best to adjust to the "new morality'.' We invited the next-door neighbors (I'll call them Ted and Alice) to dinner and the six of us got along well. After dinner my husband took Bill aside and said, 'I'll see you in the morning. I'm going next door to sleep with Alice. Ted is sleeping here with your mother.' Bill said, 'I beg your pardon, will you repeat that?' My husband repeated the statement. Bill grabbed him and said, 'Dad, you don't mean it. Why that's terrible! . . . ..you can't do such a thing right in our own house. . .' My husband asked in all innocence, 'Why not?. . .it's the way the world is going, isn't it?' Bill replied, 'But you and Mom are decent, respectable people. That stuff isn't for you!' My husband countered with, 'You're a decent person, aren't you? Why is it okay . . . ' Bill cut in, 'I get the idea, Dad. Jane sleeps at Aunt Ruth's tonight.' (27)

The point of these examples is that even the "sexually permissive" encounter some real problems when the "freedoms" they enjoy are practiced by loved ones and close friends. If they are really sure that their actions are right, they should have no problems in affording the same privileges to others. . .but they do.

With all of the above information in mind, are there not some good reasons to make a positive goal and commitment to limiting our sexual experience to a time when the sex act can be reinforced in a context of permanent love and care? From this perspective, virginity does not have to be viewed as "something that must be gotten rid of as soon as possible", but rather as a gift to treasure and save for a special and unique person whom you wish to share your life with.

Dr. J. D. Unwin, a British scholar and historian, studied eighty civilizations that have existed over the past four thousand years. He was impressed with the fact that a society chooses either sexual promiscuity and decay, or sexual discipline and creative development. He concludes, "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation." (28)

The biblical standard that puts sex within the fidelity and security of marriage is the most responsible code that has ever been developed. You need not expect it to be followed faithful by everyone. . .no code ever is. But you are justified in following it without apology today, as the best standard for protecting human, moral, and Christian values that has yet been devised.

You can choose only once to go "all the way" before marriage. As long as you wait, you still have the freedom to choose when and with whom and under what circumstances you give yourself to another human being in the most intimate contact possible for you. This is true sexual freedom-to decide when it is right and proceed, and to decide when it is not right and refrain. The decision remains freely yours.

Some readers of this essay may have already crossed this threshold decision and have experienced sex outside of marriage. The data we have discussed is in no way intended to condemn or produce guilt in you. We have sought honestly to evaluate some of the results of sexual activity apart from marriage, suggesting that it is non-productive, if not destructive, to the individuals who decide to engage in it.

The good news is that Jesus Christ came for the express purpose of forgiving our sins, sexual and all others. The woman He encountered at the well had broken this commandment, but He forgave her and met the needs of her life (John 4:1-39). Mary Magdalene had broken this commandment, but Jesus Christ wonderfully cleansed her from her sin (Luke 8:2). To the woman who had been taken in the very act of adultery and was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees, He said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more." (John 8:11). He did not condone her sin, but neither did He condemn her. Because she had trusted in Him, He sent her away redeemed and forgiven.

Jesus, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), will do the same for you and me. The pertinent question now is, "What shall we do with the future?" Christ can cleanse the past, but He expects us to respond to the light He gives us. Hopefully, this essay will help you strengthen your convictions and resolve with regard to your sexual choices in the days ahead. With Christ, we can make new beginnings. As someone has said, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

By nature, this essay has been a somewhat negative but necessary examination of prevailing sexual mores and practice. Hopefully, this analysis will lead readers to the conclusion that sexual permissiveness does not promise a bright future for those who follow its dictates. Perhaps this will help to prepare us to respond more readily and with greater appreciation to what the Bible has to say about love, sex, and marriage. Happily, in the Bible we are presented with many principles that will, if heeded, provide for us a positive and exhilarating sexual experience throughout our days.

Notes

1. Source unknown.

2. "Growing Concern Over 'Crisis in Morality,'" U.S. News & World Report. June 29, 1970, p. 56.

About the Author

James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International, and currently serves as Minister at Large. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.

During the past thirty-five years, he has visited, lectured, and counseled on more than 180 university campuses in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Union.

He has also served on the faculties of the American, Latin American, and European Institutes of Biblical Studies.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at: