In the state of Nebraska, legislators are scrambling about wondering what to do with the "high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus, among youths in Douglas County," according to an article written in the Omaha World Herald regarding the statements of Nebraska Senator Brenda Council. "Since 1995, the county's rate of Chlamydia infections has outpaced rates in both Nebraska as a whole and the United States. If you look at the population that's being infected in Douglas County, you're looking at 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds, Council said, adding that too many young men rely on medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases rather than using protection such as condoms."
Even though the school system has been teaching sex education for a long time, it is miserably unsuccessful. Now, Senator Council wants to introduce the teaching of "the benefits of abstinence" into the mix of the smorgasbord of sexual educational solutions, which includes "instruction in the proper use of all contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has OK'd a variety of devices and medications, among them the "morning after" pill that prevents pregnancy after intercourse." Others say by adding this, it will send the wrong mixed message.
Dear reader, the world is so lost on this issue. They attempt to resolve their sexual perplexities with ill-perceived solutions that are not solutions at all, but rather perpetuate the problem, even among the youngest and most innocent. For any reduction in this dilemma to be hopeful, it will involve applications of Biblical standards, which they show no interest in applying.
Regardless, for hope to have a solution, the world needs guidance on Biblical marriage and a lifestyle exemplifying it by the church. However, the world cannot turn to the church for guidance or for any kind of an example on dealing with sexual perplexities, because it is in the same sinking ship. The article "Rotten Fruit" in the AFA Journal, March 2008 (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Journal/stories.aspx?id=72949) underlines the validity of my claim.
With the church's lack of understanding on Biblical marriage and its conformity to secular concepts of sex and marriage, thus producing excessive sexual sins (fornication) against Biblical marriage, what in God's name could the church ever offer? The world mocks the church whenever it speaks concerning issues of sex and marriage.
The church's inaccurate concepts toward Biblical marriage and fornication have caused its members to blaspheme and degrade the sacred institution initiated and designed by God. The church's only answer to the world for its sex problem is "be abstinent," even though it's not generally practiced and cannot determine when it should cease, nor does the Bible teach it in the way they proclaim, i.e., "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows...But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:8,9; see also my article "Better To Marry Than To Burn"). The church can keep on preaching and promoting their form of abstinence, while 13-, 14-, and 15-year olds continue to marry (sexual intimacy) before God and most likely, as statistics are showing, end up committing fornication (inordinate sexual intimacy) before God.
When one adopts the ways of the world as the accepted culture for living, one cannot preach the Word of God in its truth. One has to distort it in order for it to fit one's world view. This has happened with the church in interpreting Biblical marriage and its precepts, making for a pathetic testimony. I wonder what percentage of those young teens being infected in Douglas County are involved in a church or a church youth group that declares itself Bible believing?
When sex is viewed as no more than a bodily function to be satisfied or engaged in with no regard to its unique sanctity within one's created being, which includes God's involvement, then, the consequence will be detrimental. As I indicate in my book "It's Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman" I state, "when men define what marriage is it is no longer sacred." When man's prescriptions, notions, feelings, excuses, laws, or inclinations become the rule, especially regarding marriage, God's ways will most likely be violated.
Instead of recognizing that human sexuality (sex) and its connections is governed by laws built into creation by God, being designed with an assured consequence with no means of elimination when it is intimately engaged, the world and the church have wrongly viewed sex as a separate entity inside of or outside of some man-made prescription (covenant, marriage license), either without consequence or with a lesser degree of consequence, which they believe can be eliminated. This perception, embraced by the church, causes misunderstanding of Biblical marriage, and fornication, and categorizes sexual intimacy, when committed wrongfully, as no greater sin to be forgiven than telling a lie. This view is wrong and is most definitely unbiblical.
There is very little difference in the way the church and world believe regarding marriage. In spite of Biblical evidence to what makes a true marriage, the church holds entrenched to the unbiblical and failing secular prevalent ideas. They both disregard sexual intimacy as having anything to do with making a marriage or "putting it usunder." They place the marriage certificate as the center piece of determining a marriage or the lack of it. How do I know this?
There are a number of ways, but particularly, evidence of this mindset is seen in the practices of Christian marriage counselors who work feverishly to reconcile a couple, no matter how many times one spouse has committed adultery against the other. They are certain their marriage is fixable. However, if that violating spouse gets a marriage license with another, they deem all effort to and chance for reconciliation to be forfeited. With them, it's not about a defiled sexual connection instigated by the unfaithful spouse that puts their marriage "asunder," they believe it's about the presence of a document.
Their idea is commit adultery as much as you want, but as long as you don't secure a document with the person you are fornicating yourself with, your marriage to the spouse you violate is still considered intact and reconcilable. This is so unbiblical, yet accepted by the church, as well as the world, and those counselors are revered and lauded for it.
I have already stated in previous articles, "When you engage in sexual intimacy with another of the opposite sex, your intimacy will result in one of two consequences Biblically: It will either be marriage or it will be fornication."
If both you and the person you are sexually intimate with are qualified to engage sexually, then, in God's design, you two are married. If, however, either you or the other person are not qualified to be sexually intimate with each other, then, in God's design, you two are committing fornication (see my article "The Honor Of Biblical Marriage" or my book).
The consequence in one instance of an unqualified sexual intimacy is clearly conveyed in what Jesus stated saying, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9, KJV). Note: There is no implication of a covenant or government document in the declaration, not in the words "marry" or "marrieth." These words, in the context of this statement, denote unqualified sexual intimacy with another by both when the putting away was not because of a sexually unfaithful spouse.
Where the problem exists with Christendom, particularly, which is similar to the world, is the perception of what makes a God ordained marriage. What they advocate is that two people make a covenant and this is the way God makes them "one flesh." The emphasis of this covenant concept appears to be the popular fad among church leaders and Christian talk shows lately.
The use of the term appears to be nothing more than a glorified title applied to a vow made by two people, confirmed before a government agent (including a licensed church official), and sealed by the marriage certificate issued by the state (see my article "Marriage: A Vow Won't Make It"). I suppose they use the term "covenant" to make it sound more Biblical and exacting. However, it is bogus, as well as destructive, and is nothing different than what the church has been accepting for years. This deceives Christians in believing in an unbiblical concept of a marriage by God, causing a lot of fornication in its wake, as is seen by observing the excess sexual sins that are rampant in the church. It is a body that is polluted, and to a degree the church isn't even aware of.
Someone might ask, "Isn't marriage by covenant a biblical concept?" I answer, most definitely. It is primarily seen in the Old Testament and only indirectly alluded to twice in the New. In Biblical times it appears to be the traditional way for a man to initiate the acquisition of a wife, but not absolutely. However, that is all it is - a way to initiate acquisition. All who were married by covenant were only married by an agreement and not connected as "one flesh" as when they consummated that agreement by their sexual intimacy (the acquisition completed). Women were a wife by covenant only. Scripture is very clear on this in both the O.T. and N.T.
Am I against marital covenants? Not at all! However, people don't procure Biblical marital covenants anymore. Even if they did, God has always had His own way of joining a man and woman as "one flesh" and it is not through any covenant or license devised by men.
John Piper in his book "This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence" says, "Marriage is patterned after Christ's covenant commitment to His church."
As I have already articulated in my previous articles, the covenant that is offered by Christ and our oneness with Him is not in a husband/wife context. Also, the covenant is the prelude to bringing about a joining where two entities become one. The covenant itself does not do it. I will show you through example in a moment.
An individual becomes a member of the body of Christ as the wife becomes the body of her husband. However, this does not happen by the covenant. With us and Christ, it happens through the regeneration of His Spirit causing us to be connected to Him as His body, not the covenant. With a man and woman, it happens through their sexual intimacy that causes the woman to be connected to her husband as his body, only if they both were sexually qualified to initiate that joining in the first place, which no covenant can determine, no covenant can change if not qualified, and where no covenant is even needed. If each qualifies to be married and a covenant (vow or whatever they deem a covenant to be) happens to exist, it becomes insignificant once their joining through sexual intimacy occurs. Any sexual violation (fornication), which occurs thereafter, will be against their intimate connection (marriage) and not against the covenant made before their intimacy existed.
Marriage isn't about covenant commitments. It's about not having any choice but to be committed once sexually intimate. If you defile (fornicate) the body of Christ once born again, you forfeit the Kingdom of God. If you defile (fornicate) your body toward your spouse, you forfeit your marriage and any marriage thereafter. If you continue to live in that marital defilement (fornication), you also forfeit the kingdom of God as well (see my article on "Fornication: Sinning Against Your Body"). Commitment is automatic, "...counteth the cost..." (Luke 14:26-33).
A simple example: You can go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger. It is now your hamburger and is known as yours. However, until you eat it, you have a number of options of what you can do with that hamburger, but once eaten, you are committed. It is now yours with no options, because it is now in you and a part of you. It is not a separate entity anymore.
One cannot commit adultery (fornication) against an agreement. The agreement only is broken and that is what one answers for. If a virgin makes a covenant/marriage license with a qualified man who she has not been sexually intimate with and then becomes sexually intimate with another qualified man, is this adultery or the violation of the covenant/marriage license?
If the marriage certificate or a covenant makes two people "one flesh", as the church declares, then, for the virgin to commit adultery, she would only need to have a marriage certificate with another man without being sexually intimate with him, wouldn't she? Is this how the church views adultery? If that is so, sex then, would be nothing more than just a physical function with no purpose, other than, for each other's pleasure or, if the female isn't taking birth control, procreation. So then, if marriage is by a vow only and not sexual, adultery must also be by a vow and not sexual. Remember what I said previously about how Christian counselors view the marriage certificate as opposed to the actual act of adultery. They redefine Biblical marriage making it unbiblical, convoluted, and damning. This is why they cannot effectively define or understand the impact of fornication.
With both the believer and Christ, and the man and woman, the covenant, which is a set of conditions, if one exists, is replaced with the bond of connection. Jesus said "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause...and they twain shall be one flesh" (Matthew 19:4)? Christ didn't say in the beginning God made a covenant, but, rather, He referenced their sexuality as factors in making them one flesh, not the institution of a covenant, which is very clear. When these two sexes are intimate, they are joined as one flesh, either rightly or wrongfully. The covenant was an agreement of exchange between a man and the man to whom the woman was under, procuring acquisition of that woman.
Allow me to give a few Scriptural examples of what I have been saying:
When Paul condemningly declared in 1Corinthians 6:15,16 that the man, as a member of Christ's body, who takes a harlot becomes "one flesh" with her, do you think that man made a covenant with her only and did not have sex with her? Is that really what men do when they take a harlot? If he is "one flesh" with her, as Paul declared, does that not now mean that they are married, even without a covenant? Did they become that way through a covenant or by other means? When examined, it is obvious that the covenant concepts of the church do not fit with Scripture.
The story of Jacob in Genesis 29:15-30 and how he acquired his wives are a good example of a marriage covenant and the lack of one. Notice how that Jacob was, by deception, given Leah to wife instead of Rachel whom he covenanted for. Since there wasn't a covenant for Leah, why didn't Jacob just reject Leah and demand Rachel instead? What was the purpose for Leah to be delivered to him for him to go "in unto her," if it didn't have meaning? What was Laban's reasoning? Also, why did Jacob have to agree to another covenant to get Rachel? Didn't the first covenant make them one? Obviously, afterward, Jacob understood he was married to Leah once he became sexually intimate with her, even without a covenant for her, and was now bound to her. Neither Leah nor Rachel officially became one flesh with Jacob until their sexually intimate encounter with him. I bring out a lot more on this illustration, the next one, and others in my book.
The last illustration is found in Judges, Chapters 19 thru 21. It is the story of the Benjaminites who had done evil in Israel and the remnant of men remaining after their slaughter. Because of the length of the story and for you to see my case, please read the Scripture and pay close attention to the latter part of chapter 21. You will not see covenants as the means of making wives even though covenants were mentioned. In fact, the marriage covenant was totally thwarted and the fathers had no recourse. Note: Men through sexual intimacy took; women were given. Thus the Biblical phrase, "they married and were given in marriage."
Sex education should not be taught, but, rather, Biblical marriage and its violation to every child age 12 and up in every Christian home and in every Christian church, especially to those youth who do not have a Christian parent. To teach marriage education makes teaching sex much more conducive, practical, and moral. If you are a parent and you have trouble teaching sexuality to your child, you need to get my book for them to read, along with my articles, and for yourself as well. Every Christian adult should understand what Biblical marriage is. Unfortunately, you won't get it from the present day church. If you see the Biblical truth in what I am teaching, help me to turn this unfortunate situation around. Help children to know the truth. It is sorely needed for the church and the world.