The CBE Scroll

Comment by Ruud Vermeij

January 19, 2007 @ 2:22 am

I found this as the girls pledge (don’t know whether it is complete):

I pledge to remain sexually pure… until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband…. I know that God requires this of me… that he loves me, and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

I also noted that there is a shift from the (unbiblical) “priest of the home” to “high priest of the home.”

Comment by Brian Andrews

January 19, 2007 @ 8:14 am

“Very disturbing”? I read through a couple of websites to get more info, and it seems to me to be one couple’s best attempts to promote purity and godliness in young people. You or I may not word things exactly as they do in their pledge, but the overall emphasis is God-honoring in my opinion.

If you find it “very disturbing” that a Christian married couple would spear head such events, then create an alternative that fits your preference. But I don’t see any reason to sound the alarm and instill fear of an event that is encouraging fathers to have fun with their daughters and take a more active role in their daughters’ spiritual development.

Comment by LJR

January 19, 2007 @ 10:30 am

I think the part of it that disturbs me the most is that the father is claiming to be the high priest for his home. There is nothing in Scripture that gives a Christian man that kind of authority. If anything, the Christian’s only High Priest is Jesus Christ. (Remind me again, who is usurping authority according to the hierarchs?)

The other thing that drives me nuts is that women are simultaneously told to submit to men and then they are supposed to be in charge of resisting sexual advances. If she resists, she’s not being submissive. If she doesn’t, she’s sinful (but he usually gets away scot-free). Yeah, yeah, sex is supposed to be for marriage, I know. But… if a woman is trained to submit, submit, submit all of her life, how is she even going to know how to resist? It looks like one nasty catch-22 to me.

I’m so glad this mess wasn’t around when I was a kid!

Comment by Francine

January 19, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

In the father’s pledge it made the statement of as the high priest in my home. High priest, isn’t that a bit on the heresy side? How can a mere Christian human take the place of the one and only high priest–Christ? By the way can anyone tell me where they get the idea of the man being priest in the home when Peter says we are all (believers, men and women) to be priests.

Comment by Leigh

January 19, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

I agree that girls and boys ought to be taught that we are all made in the image of God.

As far as practical ways to fight sexual temptation, I refrain from comment, as I do not have new ideas, I think, and I don’t know of any ideas that work (I haven’t done any research into this area, really). A rather obvious step I would recommend is to *not* teach girls that their only worth/main goal in life is to find a husband.

I appreciate the comments re: the catch-22 of being told to submit to male authority (in general), and at the same time to save yourself physically/sexually for marriage by rejecting the advances of males.

ALSO the observation in the original post, that we need to be honest about the fact that girls (and indeed women) also have a sex drive is an appropriate one. One of the things I found frustrating at my former church was that it was typically presumed that men’s sins were of a sexual nature, and women’s sins were of an emotional nature. It seemed to lead to a number of women keeping silent about the role of sex in their lives.

If you follow these presumptions–that males have a sex drive, and females lack a sex drive–to their logical ends, it makes the marriage relationship itself into a form of prostitution, by definition.

Comment by Kathryn

January 20, 2007 @ 12:14 am

Once again, women are being viewed as chattel. I firmly believe in abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage, viewing it as a part of the price of godly discipleship, as of course does CBE; however, the patriarchy involved in this particular trend is a form of spiritual witchcraft. Yes indeed, we are all priests before God, with only one High Priest!

Comment by sally

January 20, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

I gave a talk to a youth group a few years ago about why sex in marriage is the best option.

My basic point was: you don’t want to be ripped off, and you don’t want to rip other people off.

If you do it with someone before you marry them, you’re ripping yourself off in lots of different ways – potential for pregnancy, STDs, serious emotional difficulties for starters. You rip them off in the same way.

Plus, you rip off their potential husband/wife, and your own husband/wife, because you’re giving yourself and your partner a sexual history, possible health problems and definite emotional problems, all of which will contribute to a more difficult marriage.

My final reason has always been: I want to have a sexually faithful marriage. If I don’t do it with my partner before we marry, I know that I (and he/she) have proved that we both have enough self-control to hold off on hopping into bed with someone else in years to come, so there’s a definite higher probability we will stay faithful.

All this apart from the fact that the Bible says not to!

I always think it’s better to explain to young people why the rules are what they are, not just say, “This is so, therefore do it.”

The purity ball sounds cute and meaningful in a schmaltzy sort of way, but theologically bodgy to me. A better alternative — talk openly about sex in your families and your youth groups, and know WHY it’s best not to do it.

Then, help kids start setting up limits for themselves. Don’t say, “I won’t go to bed with my boyfriend.” Instead say, “I won’t lie down horizontal with him. I won’t date alone. Kissing is as far as I’ll go, and if he wants more, I know what I will say because I’ve practiced saying it. I’ll talk openly to my parents, who will accept what my limits are, trust me and help me to keep them.”

It’s all about thinking ahead, but in practical ways.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

January 20, 2007 @ 9:07 pm

Thank you for all of your comments. Sally, I absolutely agree with everything you said. That’s what I think we should be doing. I also agree with those who pointed out that the father being the high priest is not biblical and could in fact be heretical. Kathryn, that’s what this boiled down to for me: these people see women as chattel.

For those who pointed out the catch 22 of submitting to men then telling them no when it comes to premarital sex a special thanks. I hadn’t even thought of that. Thank you for adding that element to this discussion.

Ruud, thank you for finding the pledge the girls take and telling us what it was.

Comment by Kathryn

January 22, 2007 @ 8:32 pm

Re: comment # 7: Godly practical advice, Sally. Don’t just hand down rules to young people; explain the reason for those rules. There is a lot of love behind the Ten Commandments.

Comment by Lori

January 24, 2007 @ 4:55 am

Sally in #7:
The purity ball sounds cute and meaningful in a schmaltzy sort of way, but theologically bodgy to me.

That’s what I was thinking. The idea is good–of course you want to encourage kids to remain abstinent before marriage. And if you want to make it fun by dressing up in cute prom dresses, then hey, go for it. It’s the theology stated in the pledges that bugs me.
As others have already stated, the whole “husband/father as high priest” thing is pretty much non-biblical. The only verse you could find to possibly support that idea is 1 Cor 11:3. However, there is a great deal of controversy about the meaning of that verse, and many egalitarian writers have demonstrated that it can have an entirely different meaning. Therefore, to base your entire theology on that verse is, as the British say, downright dodgy. Even if you include Eph 5:22 (”wives submit”), you’re still basing your theology on only a couple of Bible verses, which is still dodgy. And of course, it brings up a whole host of practical questions. Why does a woman need a high priest over her? Isn’t that what Jesus Himself came to end? I mean, I was always taught that when the veil in the Temple split in half during Jesus’ crucifixion, that meant everybody now had direct access to God. So how on earth do you reconcile that with women needing some sort of spiritual authority over her? Are the husbands closer to God, then? (This is actually implied if you take the hierarchalist view of 1 Cor 11:3.) So how does that square with everybody being equal before God?

And, more relevant to this discussion, it encourages women to think of themselves as “belonging” to somebody for pretty much their entire lives. This idea is actually not unique to these purity balls, but pretty much runs through complementary literature on marriage and singleness. Girls are encouraged to stay home with their parents until they get married–the latest hit book on the subject says that a woman should stay home now matter how old she is and let her father guide her relationships “just like they did in the Bible.” Therefore, women are encouraged to be eternally dependent, first on their fathers and then on their husbands. Is that emotionally or mentally healthy for women?

As for the idea of having teenagers take formal pledges of chastity, will that even work? Remember the “True Love Waits” fiasco, where a study showed that teens who took that pledge were still committing sexual acts such as oral sex, because they believed it wasn’t “real sex”? I think Sally’s recommendations are far better.

And last, as to the submission issue, here’s what I think somebody in the headship movement would say, based on having grown up in it. “Submission only applies once you get married. The Bible says for wives to submit to their husbands. Of course, a woman should reject anything that contradicts God’s Word. Any man other than her husband who tries to pressure her into having sex is clearly not following God, so naturally the woman should reject him.” However, they still insist on women being passive–a woman should never initiate a relationship but always let the man do the courting.

Comment by cokhavim

January 26, 2007 @ 9:20 am

Comment #1 quoted the pledge girls make:
“until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband”

What about the boys giving themselves as a wedding gift to their wives???

Is this more evidence that such people view women as chattel?

Absolutely disgusting.

Comment by Kathryn

January 26, 2007 @ 11:00 pm

Re: comment 11: Great point. Of course, a woman should resist such sexual advances, but I would ask patriarchs this question: When a woman resists ungodly advances from a man, is she then acting as his spiritual leader by saying “No, this isn’t right before God.”? Sounds like spiritual leadership to me.

Comment by Lori Buckle

January 28, 2007 @ 7:54 am

Comment #1 quoted the pledge girls make:
“until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband”

That statement disturbs me too, but for a different reason. It implies that the girl will find a husband. There is nothing in the Bible that says that any man or woman will find a spouse. God never promises anyone that they’ll get married, just that He’ll be with us, no matter what happens to us in life. As a woman who didn’t get married until her 30′s, I can tell you that this is one of the most damaging myths perpetuated among Christian singles. “There’s somebody for everybody. God knows I desire to get married, so He’ll provide somebody.” Then people–men and women–get frustrated when that doesn’t happen on their timetable.

I can also say from personal experience that in headship churches there is tremendous pressure to get married. They put such heavy emphasis on getting married and having kids, especially for women, that anybody not happily settled with a spouse and 2.5 kids is considered “not normal” and even vaguely threatening. I remember once my single’s Sunday School teacher (who met his own wife in Bible college thirty years earlier), was urging us to get more involved in the church. The youth group particularly needed mentors, he said. One of the men in our class snorted cynically and said, “They don’t want us hanging around the youth group. They’re afraid of the example we would set. They want their kids to get married early and think they’ll live happily ever after.” Even though I’m married now, I keep in touch with my single friends, and I can tell you that these kinds of attitudes are still prevalent. One prominent Christian leader even said once that we would be rewarded in Heaven for getting married on earth! You can imagine what kind of pain that caused to the single people who heard it.

Comment by Liz

February 24, 2007 @ 8:25 pm

Repyling to Brian – comment 2.
Your statement “I don’t see any reason to ‘sound the alarm’ or ‘instil fear’ suggests to me that we just go along with whatever is suggested even if we see damaging consequences. Anything which perpetuates the idea of a daughter being under her father’s protection (as against both parents) carries with it the belief that female believers are not capable of being upright, God-honouring individuals. It also suggests that a woman moves from her father’s oversight to that of her husband – once again not encouraging her to stand on her own two feet (spiritually) and grow up into Christ. For these reasons I am fearful of these movements and try to politely point out these inconsistencies when I see them.

Comment by Don

May 11, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

I have other concerns.

A child, boy or girl, is supposed to obey his or her parents, per Eph 6 and other verses. This obedience ends when the child becomes an adult. However, in this purity ball system, it ends when the girl gets married; then the obedience gets transfered to her husband.

In this way the female is always in a system of obedience.

Furthermore, there seems to be an implied idea that IF I am a virgin, then I get to marry a virgin. Life does not work that way. All of us are sinners before God, and we cannot horse trade the lack of a specific sin into a similar lack in a spouse; to think otherwise is to believe one is entitled to something that is not promised in the Bible.

Another concern is that I have read that these types of vows do not work, the rate of virginity before marriage is the same for people that took a vow as for the others. And the vow carries the possible idea that IF one breaks it, then it is broken and one might as well do what one wants. And what does it mean when one DOES make a vow from the Bible, like a marriage vow?

So, yes to teaching abstinence to one’s children. But not in this way of a purity ball. The way of a Christian is in following the Spirit.

Comment by RED

May 13, 2011 @ 6:33 am

Don,

I agree re: the implication that if you save your virginity, God will “reward” you by giving you someone who is also a virgin.

There is another side to this which I find equally disturbing. When I was a teen, we were taught that if you saved your virginity, God would automatically give you and your future spouse an explosive, problem-free sex life of bliss.

Now I will be the first to say that waiting until marriage is worth it :) But I have seen couples who waited still have problems and frustrations with their love life, due to medical issues and whatnot. I’ve also seen couples who didn’t care about abstinence have explosive sex lives.

I feel that if you teach a teen that God will reward him/her for abstinence in this manner, it could be setting them up for major bitterness and confusion later on, if every single thing about their sex life does not go perfectly.

Is it generally better to wait until marriage? Yes. Are one-partner relationships usually better in many ways? Yes. But is “getting benefits” the only reason we’re obeying God? Of course not.