Associated Baptist Press - Opinion: American sexual ethics today, Part 1

Opinion: American sexual ethics today, Part 1

By David Gushee

Monday, October 12, 2009

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of two columns contrasting prevailing cultural attitudes on sexuality with classic Christian ethics and calling for Christians to reclaim their own heritage in a countercultural practice of Christian community. The second will be published next Monday.

(ABP) -- America is a country largely liberated from an earlier conservatism, often called “prudishness,” about sex. This liberation came about as a result of the conscious efforts of numerous social reformers during the 20th century who believed that sex is one of life’s highest goods, that the repression of sexual desires is bad for people psychologically, that it is unrealistic to confine sex to marriage, and that it would be a very good thing to use newly refined birth-control methods to disentangle sex from the risk of pregnancy.

It was not only secular voices that embraced some or all of these changes. Eventually a large community of Christian ministers, theologians, and moral thinkers argued for a rethinking of sex. They wanted it to be seen less as a means to an end -- sex makes babies, babies are good, therefore sex must be permissible -- to an end in itself. Sex should be viewed as a good gift from a good God who created the pleasures of sex and wants us to enjoy ourselves; and sex is also good in the way it draws us closer to our sexual partner in the act of lovemaking. More conservative Christian thinkers celebrated these good gifts but sought to confine them to marriage; an increasing number of other Christian leaders were not so sure about holding onto those historic limits.

Loosening sexual attitudes also presented business opportunities. Greater tolerance for selling products on the basis of what used to be called “sex appeal” presented a treasure trove of marketing opportunities. Eventually, the dramatic reshaping of American attitudes toward sex meant that sex itself, and not just sex appeal, could increasingly be sold on the open market. People could buy not just sexy cars, but sex itself -- as with the marketing today of sexual services on Internet sites.

Popular culture certainly got in on the act. In the 1950s, Elvis Presley shocked much of the public with his gyrating hips. By the 1970s, Donna Summer sure sounded like she was in the act of having sex as she moaned out “Love to Love You Baby.” Now even the “censored” versions of rap songs communicate how much the singer would like to “make love in the club,” or alternatively, that he is “into having sex, not into making love.” Very little is left to the imagination.

Some raw sociological facts have contributed to the apparent crash-and-burn of the more conservative Christian sexual morality. Probably the most important is that people keep delaying or abandoning marriage. It was one thing to tell kids to just say “no” until marriage, as I did, at 22. That was excruciating enough. But now with average ages of first marriage climbing into the mid-to-upper 20s, and with many people not marrying at all, the message that sex belongs within marriage is bumping up against hard demographic realities. The Christian who refrains from sex until the age of 26 or 28 is definitely in the minority, fighting against the forces both of nature and culture.

The ‘60s sexual revolutionaries assured their contemporaries that looser sexual mores would not be a problem because of the magic of birth control, especially the Pill. But 40 years later, half of all pregnancies are unintended and just under half of the unintended pregnancies end in abortion. This is almost universally recognized as a bad thing, even by those who favor our current abortion laws, because an unwanted pregnancy creates a great and terrible crisis -- especially for the woman.

So America finds itself stalemated on these issues. We are not willing as a society to put the genie back in the bottle, but all is hardly sweetness and light. We are a sexually “liberated” and open society, and people are free to have sex with whomever they want, as long as there is consent and everyone is of age. Meanwhile, we encourage young people to be responsible with their sexuality and to use birth control rather than risk pregnancy. We also warn young people about disease. Many unwanted pregnancies occur -- and many of these are dealt with through legalized abortion, which is ever more deeply entrenched. People who love each other or even like each other a bit are expected, and expect, to have sex, regardless of marital status. And as a result, many songs and movies will be written by and about people who unintentionally get pregnant (as in “Knocked Up”), or get their hearts broken in sexual and romantic relationships that don’t quite work out (as in the romantic tragicomedy hit this year, “500 Days of Summer.”) Sexual activity is assumed; relationships are fragile; hearts are broken; then everyone tries again, scars and all, until they get lucky in love or give up altogether.

Does Christianity have anything to say into this cultural context?

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

What's this?

Comments (19) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by pjerwin, October 13, 2009

Does Christianity have anything to say into this cultural context? Absolutely! In fact, it's the perfect backdrop for Christianity to affirm what the Bible has always taught. What better opportunity has there been to demonstrate what it means to be squeezed into the world's mould rather than to be transformed by the renewing our minds?

there are horrible problems here
written by Xenophon, October 13, 2009

I agree in large part with Dr. Gushee's discussion of the social evolution of sexual relationships in America and, we can add, throughout the West. I would disagree though with his use of the term "prudishness" to characterize sexual attitudes prior to the Twentieth Century. I stumbled into a showing of Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well,* the other night at Angelica Theatre in Dallas. Dialogue in the play was candid without being vulgar concerning the nature of male-female relationships. Such playful depictions were not uncommon in Western literature in past centuries. There is also a myth that Victorians were asexual or discouraged sex for means other than procreation. Michael Mason's *The Making of Victorian Sexuality* debunks those mid-Twentieth Century myths perpetrated by the cultural left. But it is certainly fair to say that the sexual moral climate of the United States entered a period of degeneracy in recent decades that has only worsened over time.

I am very sorry to say that one big factor in this decline is due to the success of capitalism. As sociologist Daniel Bell has observed in his *Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism,* as capitalism has generated increasing levels of wealth, personal responsibility with an eye to the future has diminished. We can see this insight borne out in the present discussion with clear evidence both formally presented and informally obvious before us. For example, consider the British medical journal Lancet's report that while monogamy is the rule throughout most of the world, sexual promiscuity is much greater in more affluent Western countries. The Lancet, Volume 368, Issue 9548, Pages 1706 - 1728, 11 November 2006

This aggregate sexual behavior and attitudes of individuals has created a social environment that has fostered sexual license. Once dating became the standard way that young men and women engaged each other, the focus shifted off of marriage and responsibility to care for one another. Instead, entertainment and the thrill of the prospect of casual sex became the dominant concern with marriage drifting off to become a distant afterthought. Consider the following discussion about the current social climate between men and women in the U.S. from a study at the University of Virginia:

"The mating culture for today’s twentysomethings is not oriented to marriage, as it has been in times past,nor is it dedicated to romantic love. Based on the reports of these noncollege singles, it is perhaps best described as a culture of sex without strings and relationships without rings. The men and women in these focus groups rarely volunteer the word "love" or use the phrase "falling in
love." Instead of "love," they talk about "sex" and "relationships." This double language reflects the two
separate spheres of unwed coupling. Sex is for fun. It is one of the taken-for-granted freedoms and pleasures of being young and single. Both men and women regard casual sex as an expected part of the dating scene. Only a few take a moralistic stand against it. Both men and women also agree that casual sex is no-strings-attached sex. It requires no commitments beyond the sexual encounter itself, no ethical obligation beyond mutual consent. When men and women hook up for sex, they say, it’s assumed that one’s partner is likely to lie about
past sexual history. Accordingly, the conventional wisdom is: "Trust no one." Indeed, these men and women see lying, cheating, and dumping as unremarkable behavior in casual sexual hookups.
Compared to casual sex, relationships require greater investments of time and effort. If you are 'in a relationship,' say these young adults, you are expected to spend time together and to go out as a couple. You have to know what pleases your partner, do "the little things," and act with concern for his or her
interests. For example, a young man "in a relationship" says his girlfriend shows she cares for him 'financially and emotionally' when she suggests a candlelight dinner at home rather than an expensive
dinner out. Being 'in a relationship' also requires higher ethical standards than casual sex. Trust, honesty
and sexual fidelity are expected. If you depart from these standards, these young people say, you jeopardize the relationship." (From SEX WITHOUT STRINGS, RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT RINGS: Today’s Young Singles Talk About Mating and Dating, The Marriage Project)

...
written by pjerwin, October 13, 2009

Xenophon wrote:

I am very sorry to say that one big factor in this decline is due to the success of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system, and as such has never generated or diminished anything. Capitalism can't be blamed.

reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, October 14, 2009

I agree that capitalism is a neutral system--in a sense. If consumers want Bibles and church buildings, then capitalism gives them what they want efficiently. If they want prostitutes and heroin, then it gives them what they want efficiently. What the market produces depends on the moral character and taste of the people it serves. It does not cause anyone to act immorally.

But the strength of capitalism is that it assumes that human nature is irredeemably selfish, which is correct, and channels what would otherwise be socially destructive into what is potentially socially beneficial, if people desire the right sort of things. What Daniel Bell has pin-pointed about capitalism is that is while it encourages and even demands of individuals self-restraint and empathy in its earlier stages to produce greater amounts of wealth that can improve persons' material well-being, at later stages of capitalism as people grow up in relative ease, they have enough of a cushion to indulge their appetites without regard to their future or others. Of course, ultimately, there will be a price to pay, but the excess wealth blunts the immediate negative consequences of irresponsible behavior and attitudes. So, while free market theorists are realistic about human greed and selfishness in production, they have overlooked the same human traits in consumption as higher levels of production create a surplus that have made reckless behavior less costly in the short-run, so we get more of it.

I might add that capitalism fosters certain attitudes and habits that are inherently destabilizing and anti-social. Again, this is a strength of capitalism that we humans have perverted. But capitalism itself is founded upon the assumption that people are perverse by nature. Capitalism is able to provide incentives to people to see where old ways of doing things and established relationships are standing in the way of greater efficiency. This can be good in many cases or tragic but necessary in others. But this flexibility can inculcate a mindset that regards all relationships as disposable and all resources including human beings as "standing reserve" to be used at whim. I think we can see these attitudes coming out in the twentysomethings described in the study that I quoted from above. Or consider Gary Becker, the free market economist, who has argued for abortion on demand so that women can abort their children when they are less able to care for the child and then conceive other children at a later time when they are in a better position to raise the child. On Becker's view, respect for persons goes by the wayside as people simply pursue what they perceive to be in their immediate raw self-interest. This is also what is going on in the contemporary dating scene as well as in marriage.

...
written by pjerwin, October 14, 2009

The point still stands: don't blame capitalism, blame people. Capitalism has no strength and fosters nothing. It's the people and the way they use the system. You find the possibility of the same kinds of degredation in every economic system. It comes down to people -- their ethics and morality.

I don't think so
written by Xenophon, October 14, 2009

One thing that we have to be on guard against, no matter our thoughts on political and economic issues, is allowing these positions to develop into an ideology. Political scientist Kenneth Minogue has distinguished between ‘philosophy’ and ‘ideology’ in his book *Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology.* Judge Richard Posner has made a similar distinction that I think is correct. While philosophy explores various conceptual frameworks to better understand the world, ideology, in contrast, offers an all-encompassing conceptual framework that offers the unrealistic prospect of unambiguously and absolutely ameliorating all human foibles and predicaments. Marxists offer an ideology as do some libertarians and free marketeers. We have to realize that any human system dealing with human problems is not complete or costless. The free market is no exception as much as I appreciate the advantages of capitalism.

I have to say that I strongly disagree that an economic system such as capitalism “generates nothing” or “fosters nothing.” Clearly the economic system people live and work in has a tremendous effect on their conscious decisions as well as their unconscious assumptions about an entire range of affairs that spread out over economic and non-economic matters. For example, capitalism fosters attitudes of hard work, busyness, diligence, initiative, productivity, frugality, taking a long-range view, deferred gratification, friendliness, cooperation, concern for the needs of others, innovation, creativity, tolerance, openness to experience and an openness to strangers, as well as many other positive traits. Socialism in contrast may foster an attitude of fraternity, loss of feudal class consciousness, a more relaxed, slow-paced approach to life that emphasizes consumption rather than production, a less competitive, social attitude toward others, less openness to strangers and foreigners, less openness to change and innovation that preserves traditional ways of life. David Hume observed differences that monarchies and republics cultivated in its population with monarchies encouraging greater appreciation of manners and morals as well as aesthetic taste while democratic republics stimulate a greater interest in commerce and science.

Capitalism has indeed generated something and that is more wealth and opportunity. These improvements in the human condition are due to the free market providing incentives for people to work harder, defer gratification to save that provides the capital to build more and better tools to discover and transform resources into goods that benefit people, to discover and meet the needs of others, to take risks to drill, explore, invest, and manufacture based on the expectation that entrepreneurs will find and bring to market goods and services that others actually need. The surplus that the free market has facilitated in creating has also produced the gains in life-span, health, the arts, education, philosophy, theology, science and technology.

There are upsides to each of these systems and as well as downsides that we need to recognize as we make very hard trade-offs in deciding which system we want to live in. I know of no economic, political, or legal system that is perfect nor does entirely what it claims to do. In fact, paradoxically, each of these systems that we may consider might very well inadvertently provide direction to reach ends that its proponents abhor.

I don't so, part 2
written by Xenophon, October 14, 2009

While I agree that each individual is responsible for his own decisions, it is also true that economic policies and institutions can present people with incentives that make them more open to actions that they might not otherwise be. For example, there is a reason that bubbles develop in the economy. And that reason is that the central bank artificially lowers the interest rate that then induces entrepreneurs to overinvest in unsustainable projects. It is no coincidence that entrepreneurs consistently make these poor judgements when the Federal Reserve in the U.S. undertakes expansionary monetary policy. Of course, the individual entrepreneur could decide to invest in less risky ventures, but if he does not take advantage of easy money and seemingly easy gains, then he leaves “money on the table” in the short-run, which he could correctly deem to be irrational. I believe that Marx was correct in observing that economic institutions and practices subtly influence people’s attitudes and beliefs that range far from economics per se. So, when economic circumstances change, people will respond to them in a wide-ranging way. If they did not do so, then capitalism itself would be proven to be inadequate in providing an account of human behavior since it is based on the insight that people respond to incentives and changes in relative prices.

We have to ask ourselves why has the sexual mores of the West been so badly corrupted since the mid 1960's on such a large scale? See the Lancet study I cited above. People have always had these urges as we know from history and from introspection if we are honest with ourselves. There is some systematic breakdown in sexual morality transpiring before our eyes and even affecting committed Christians. So, we must look beyond simply saying that sexual immorality is only a failure of moral character. Certainly it is, but why is it so widespread now and not in the past and not in the present in less affluent countries? Tom Wolfe in his novel, *I am Charlotte Simmons,* provides a fictionalized account of what he observed first-hand is going on today on college campuses with the “hook-up culture.” He opens his book with a quote from biological research on human conformity. There are reasons that people conform and why certain physical impulses are accentuated in various social environments that shape each person’s consciousness. While this social environment has developed for a number of reasons, I think that we conservatives have to be honest and admit that capitalism has contributed to this catastrophe. Increased wealth and opportunity certainly has a big upside to it and capitalism has indeed generated more wealth. But, I regret to say, that the increases in wealth also have a dark side, and that is what we are living in now.

Blame?
written by Slick, October 15, 2009

First, Gushee's article is well stated and on point. Second, capitalism is clearly a contributor to the sexual liberation of which he spoke. Thirdly, we'll never agree on the single reason for the change in attitudes because there will always be a countrpoint.

But back to blame--a wrod used in a previous post. Why is blame necessary? Blame connotes that the shift in sexual attitides is bad. I don't agree that it's bad. Don't know that it's necessarily good either but its happened.

In my experience, sex is a good thing and openness about it is far batter than my earlier years when adults tried to convince us it was dirty. People naturally and normally want to have sex and I will argue that sex is, in fact, a God-given attribute we should enjoy in the way He intended.

Trouble is, we all can't agree on exectly what He intended.

...
written by pjerwin, October 15, 2009

Gushee's thinking is well stated and he makes some good points. However the question he leaves us with -- "Does Christianity have anything to say into this cultural context?" -- is, frankly, pretty shallow. The prima facieanswer, regardless of where one takes it, is, "Of course." He should have asked, "What does Christianity have to say into this cultural context?" or "Does Christianity have anything newto say into this cultural context?" or some such.

Regarding the word "blame," referrs to holding responsible in a negative way, as in "one big factor in this decline is due to..." In other words, Xenophon imples that there's been a societal decline, a negative movement, and that capitalism on one big factor responsible for the it. Call it blame call it credit, it's irrelevant.

But here's my point: capitalism is a theory, an idea, a system, a tool. Using capitalistic theories, ideas, and systems, people can do and have done great good or great evil, just as they do and have done under other socioeconomic systems. American myopia is part of our difficulty in this discussion; this sexual "reformation" or "revolution" has not occurred in an american or capitalist vacuum. The same "decline" has occurred in socialist Europe, communist Russian and China, and even totalitarian religious societies. In the various social movements of the 1600s and 1700s, not to mention ancient societies, people embraced similar attitudes toward social and sexual relations. Social engineers have merely used the tools of the various societies in which they exist to bring about the changes they're interested in. It always come down to the people in any given system and the decisions they make.

But let me throw this out: Gushee wrote:

More conservative Christian thinkers celebrated these good gifts but sought to confine them to marriage; an increasing number of other Christian leaders were not so sure about holding onto those historic limits.

Gushee's language here is [intentionally?] fuzzy and points to a real issue. A much clearer -- and truer -- way of stating it is that "more conservative Christian thinkers celebrated these good gifts but sought to maintain biblical limitations, reserving them for marriage; other Christian leaders were no so sure about holding onto those biblical limits." Whether or not one agrees with the social-sexual ethic of the Bible, and whether or not one believes the passages regarding those social-sexual ethics ought to be in the Bible, the point is still true.

Given, as Slick points out, that we -- Christians (and please note, my "moderates" and liberal sisters and brothers, that I didn't say that those who don't stick to the Bible as it was handed down to us are not Christians) -- don't all agree, the final weakness of Gushee's article comes to light: He asks, "Does Christianity have anything to say into this cultural context?" One must really ask, "Do any of the various strands of Christianity have anything [new] to say into this cultural conext; if so, what, and if not, why?"

correct paragraph 2 above
written by pjerwin, October 15, 2009

The word "blame" referrs to "holding responsible" in a negative way, as in "one big factor in this decline is due to..." In other words, Xenophon imples that there's been a societal decline (a negative movement) and that capitalism is one big factor responsible for the it. Call it blame, call it credit, it's irrelevant.

other factors in sexual license today
written by Xenophon, October 16, 2009

Another factor I see that helped to bring on the "Sexual Revolution" in addition to the affluence created by free markets is demographics. The first wave of baby boomers reached adolescence and early adulthood in massive numbers in the mid to late 1960's when sexual mores changed so openly and dramatically. Of course, young people in all time periods are highly interested in sex due to natural endowment, but previously social structures channeled that interest into marriage or provided incentives for the young to sublimate their desires until they could marry. In fact, in less sexually open times, young people reached sexual maturity at somewhat later ages. The age at which young people reach sexual maturity has continued to fall since the 1960's, only aggravating the problem.

Empowering the unusually large number of adolescents in throwing off traditional personal and social restraints were independent sources of income provided, again, by the post World War II affluence. Teens and young adults postponed marriage as their training periods in school and college became more drawn out. They had more leisure time and income from working part-time jobs. Marketers in the entertainment industry catered to the more sexually aware young creating a unique adolescent market for more sexually suggestive music and movies. This move was facilitated by both the huge numbers of young people and their increased purchasing power. The availability of automobiles that were either purchased for teens and young adults by parents or by the young themselves provided greater opportunity to act on their sexual impulses. These factors along with others acted to create a social climate that was more erotically charged.

Motivated by dissatisfaction with mainstream Christianity and banal middle class daily life in suburbia, many of the young sought more meaningful and intense ways of life in the counter-culture. Part and parcel of the counter-culture was an extreme naturalism that sought to throw off anything that smacked of inauthenticity and alienation. A more experiential spirituality combined with sensuality drew the young to the counter-culture and helped transform society. These same young people craved overt discussion of mores and attitudes that their parents took for granted. In some ways, I would say that these developments were good and in some ways bad. My interest in philosophy is rooted in this zeitgeist. Obviously, I think that being able to see truths for oneself is good. I would argue, in reply to Slick's comments above, that the overt emphasis on sexuality, in the end, had a corrupting influence since it over-emphasized the sexual aspects of erotic love and de-coupled sex from romantic love that we still see today. In doing so, people have come to treat their "lovers" as mere objects to be used and discarded, which is obviously dehumanizing.

Since these baby boomers have grown up and have had their own children, many have refused for a variety of reasons to impose discipline on their own children who are reaching their sexual maturity. One reason for this permissiveness is that some wrongly believe that to restrict their children's sexuality would be hypocritical since the parents were sexually active when they were young. Many also fear losing the love of their children since they remember the "Generation Gap" of the 60's and 70's when the parents of that day attempted to restrict their children, the parents of today.

Again we see the effects of a mature capitalism creating perverse incentives. In earlier stages of capitalism, parents had an incentive to train and discipline their children since the adult children would take over the family farm or business in time. Children were viewed subconsciously as "producer goods" and people had an incentive to prepare them for a responsible adult life since the parents' later livelihood was dependent on the self-control and constancy of their children. Nowadays, that incentive is lost as people have independent careers and sources of income. So, children are now viewed subconsciously as "consumer goods" who simply bring immediate amusement to parents' lives such as a pet might. Again, we see how increasing levels of wealth and changing constraints on people's behavior have dramatically altered the social climate we live in. We also see the dramatic effect of demographics. Sheer numbers matter in shaping the social structures that, in turn, influence individuals in subtle and not so subtle ways as they dwell in a way of life that emerges from the influence of the dominant group.

...
written by pjerwin, October 16, 2009

Xenophon wrote:

The age at which young people reach sexual maturity has continued to fall since the 1960's, only aggravating the problem.

How do you define "sexual maturity"? The ages at which young people engage in sexual activity, at which they become sexually aware and sexually intimate, may have fallen, but it is by no means mature sexuality/intimacy. Their physical tools (i.e. body parts) may have reached maturity (and I seriously doubt that the age at which that occurs has changed), but their emotions, intellect, and wisdom have not.

Xenophon wrote:

Again we see the effects of a mature capitalism creating perverse incentives.

You're stuck with at least two problems in your theories: 1) this "revolution" was occurring outside of the US capitalist system as well, so it isn't tied to capitalism; 2) the "perverse incentives" were created by people. Further, it seems that what you're talking about is not so much capitalism as it is continued urbanization and industrialization. Young people no longer have to leave smaller, more rural communities to be urbanized; life in small towns is being urbanized. Because of with the entrenchment of advancements in technology and communication (i.e. the internet, cell phones, satellite and cable television, etc.), the tide of urbanization is ebbing back to smaller communities.

But enough of the theorizing about what has brought the current situation about. The question is, how will your Christianity minister to people in this culture? Will you do your best to squeeze into the culture's mold so its people will find your religion more palatable (i.e. welcome and affirm its new "morality"), or will you seek to transform the people and their culture by renewing the people's thinking?

reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, October 16, 2009

Thanks for your comments, PJ. To answer your question about "sexual maturity," I mean puberty, i.e. physical maturity. I did not intend to include emotional and intellectual maturity in my use of the term, 'sexual maturity.'

Yes, it is true that children in developed countries are reaching puberty earlier, and this has been a secular trend for decades. There are many studies and sources to confirm this observation. This is the same kind of thing that Tom Wolfe is referring to his novel that I mentioned above. It may be similar to girls who share a dorm room noticing that their menstrual cycles coming into synch. It seems to be that people's autonomic and para-sympathetic nervous systems coordinate with each other in some mysterious way. Whatever the cause, here is a link to one article on the subject. There are many other references on this subject.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4530743.stm

Next, capitalism has brought about the industrialization and urbanization that you mention. What you are referring to is the "Industrial Revolution," which was facilitated by free market reforms inspired by Adam Smith and other classical economists.

Have there been other systems that have also produced increasing amounts of wealth and fostered peace, at least relatively speaking and have suffered moral decline? Yes. For example, when the ancient Israelites became relatively more prosperous and enjoyed peace, they tended to turn away from God over time. The Romans became more powerful and wealthier and departed from their socially conservative ethic fairly rapidly after the establishment of their empire.

But capitalism is especially good at producing wealth. Urbanization and industrialization are part and parcel of that process, at least in certain stages of capitalism. Most of Europe has a version of capitalism that can be considered corporate capitalism featuring government arranged and protected cartels. What is interesting here is that Southern Europe has more conservative sexual attitudes and behaviors than Northern Europe. Southern Europe is not as prosperous and has more of a laid back attitude toward the policies of economic growth. Ireland provides a laboratory test of what we are discussing here. Since their free market economic reforms and increased economic growth, Ireland's out of birth wedlock births has skyrocketed.

We can see something similar going on in China as they have introduced free market reforms and in the Soviet block. Since the fall of Communism, sexual mores have dramatically changed for the worse. *The Sexual Revolution in Russia: From the Age of the Czars to Today,*
by Igor S. Kon published in 1995 documents these changes. The sexual mores under Communism were more conservative than after the introduction of capitalism, albeit in a less than pure form.

I am all in favor of the free market. I do think that we need to move to policies that do not ramp up sudden and explosive growth. This is especially true when the Federal Reserve cranks up the money supply to stimulate growth that cannot be sustained. I would like to see something like the Southern European or Swiss approach to the economy and to life generally taken up here. I believe that the philosophy of life taken up by contemporary Southern Europeans is more consistent with traditional American Southern culture. This difference between Northern and Southern Europe today was also one of the main reasons for the American Civil War since the North took the more aggressive approach to industrialization and rapid economic growth. I see that the contemporary Southern European tack as more consistent with Jefferson's vision of a more slowly moving brand of lassiez-faire that provided the ante-bellum South with sustained but slower rates of growth that did not undermine the culture that supported it. Also the Austrian (economics a la F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, not necessarily the nation of Austria) view of very slow and sustainable monetary expansion brought into line with the savings rate might also curb the excesses that we have witnessed in the post-World War II era.
There are studies that folks in the Eastern block had more conservative attitudes and practices than people in the West.

correction
written by Xenophon, October 16, 2009

Please ignore that last sentence. I overlooked it from a first draft when I posted my comments a minute ago.

God's Word Has Not Changed
written by Mark Osgatharp, October 16, 2009

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

...
written by pjerwin, October 16, 2009

To answer your question about "sexual maturity," I mean puberty, i.e. physical maturity.

Puberty is equal to neither physical nor sexual maturity. Puberty is the stage of adolescence in which an individual becomes physiologically capable of sexual reproduction. Adolescence is the transitional period of development between youth and maturity, the period of physical and psychological development from the onset of puberty to maturity. So, the age at which young people begin adolescence has been falling because the onset of puberty is occurring earlier. That’s a far cry from young people reaching sexual maturity.

Next, capitalism has brought about the industrialization and urbanization that you mention.

Capitalism did not “bring about… industrialization and urbanization” and is not “especially good at producing wealth;” people bring industrialization and urbanization about, and people are good at producing wealth under the capitalist system. People have produced great under a variety of socioeconomic systems.

This difference between Northern and Southern Europe today was also one of the main reasons for the American Civil War.

What? How can the difference between Northern and Southern Europe today have anything to do the American Civil War? Are we in come kind of time warp?

What you are referring to is the "Industrial Revolution," which was facilitated by free market reforms inspired by Adam Smith and other classical economists.

No, I’m not referring to the Industrial Revolution. What I meant is pretty clear, however, let me reiterate: But enough of the theorizing about what has brought the current situation about. The question is, how will your Christianity minister to people in this culture? Will you do your best to squeeze into the culture's mold so its people will find your religion more palatable (i.e. welcome and affirm its new "morality"), or will you seek to transform the people and their culture by renewing the people's thinking?

Well...
written by Xenophon, October 17, 2009

We seem to be getting bogged down in precise working and terminology to the point that we are losing the substance of the discussion. For example, you say, PJ, that

"[p]uberty is equal to neither physical nor sexual maturity. Puberty is the stage of adolescence in which an individual becomes physiologically capable of sexual reproduction. Adolescence is the transitional period of development between youth and maturity, the period of physical and psychological development from the onset of puberty to maturity. So, the age at which young people begin adolescence has been falling because the onset of puberty is occurring earlier. That’s a far cry from young people reaching sexual maturity."

While your use of the various terms in question are reasonable and understandable, my use of 'sexual maturity' was used properly in my post above. I would urge you to consult online medical dictionaries and the wiki article defining the term if you have doubts about the term used in this context. I tried to clarify my use of the term in my last post and I receive the reply I quoted above. Frankly, this passage quoted from your last reply does not sound as though you were sincerely unclear about what I was referring to above, but rather seems to be a case of pettifogging.

Another bit of your seeming to be deliberately obtuse is the following two passages from your comments above:

"Further, it seems that what you're talking about is not so much capitalism as it is continued urbanization and industrialization. Young people no longer have to leave smaller, more rural communities to be urbanized; life in small towns is being urbanized. Because of with the entrenchment of advancements in technology and communication (i.e. the internet, cell phones, satellite and cable television, etc.), the tide of urbanization is ebbing back to smaller communities."
(posted on earlier on October 16)

I then pointed out in a reply that capitalism is the prime mover for the trends that you identify here. Your reply to my response to your point is the following from you last post:

"No, I’m not referring to the Industrial Revolution." (Later reply on October 16)

What was the previous point about industrialization and urbanization about then?

I think that I have presented my position replete with evidence on the what I see as the harmful effects on human sexuality that capitalism (or people interacting with one another as their relationships have become structured in accordance with the principles articulated by capitalist theory) has engendered so that anyone reading my comments with the "principle of charity" can get the gist of what I am saying. I have tried to clarify my position and that does not seem to be working. I do not see that continuing the back and forth at this point will shed any more light on my position.

...
written by pjerwin, October 17, 2009

No, the real point is you're bogged down in trying to tie the cause to capitalism, but you're not dealing with the question Gushee poses. Unless you're suggesting that the Church needs to concentrate on rooting-out capitalism from society or to work on a socioeconomic level to reengineer capitalism, then the point you're making is moot. How will your Christianity minister to people with today's sexual ethics -- regardless of how the sexual ethics came into being?

...
written by Jesdisciple, October 31, 2009

I don't understand what kind of response Gushee expects... I'll counsel any male who sees me as a mentor in what Scripture says about sex if the issue comes up. But that's kind of a short and closed answer to such a long article.

I am glad to see that this issue is also troubling to the more liberally inclined. I really don't get why Gushee won't give up the catalysts when their intended effects didn't show up, though.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

Write comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register

< Prev		Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion