Posted on 05/05/2009 5:00:23 AM PDT by SLB
This will come as no news to most younger evangelicals, but The Tennessean [Nashville] has just taken notice of the fact that a sizable number of younger evangelical couples are saving their first kiss for their wedding ceremony.
As the paper reports, "In a culture where casual sex is the norm, some Tennesseans have taken the purity pledge to a whole new level, through a practice that some teens refer to as the 'Virgin Lips Movement.'"
Reporter Claudia Pinto began her article with the fact that Katy Kruger, who was married on December 13 of last year, experienced her first kiss at the moment her new husband kissed his bride. "The 22-year-old woman, who was married at Harpeth Hills Church of Christ in Brentwood, admits to being nervous and a bit self-conscious about having her first kiss in front of 200 people.," Pinto reported. "I wasn't sure what to do," said the bride, "I thought I would mess up."
The Virgin Lips Movement will sound absolutely nuts to a culture that has openly embraced the Sexual Revolution. Sexual virginity is controversial enough, with authors like Jessica Valenti arguing that the expectation of virginity until marriage is unfair to girls and young women. In The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women, Valenti presses her case, suggesting that when young women aim for virginity and fail, they suffer a loss of self esteem. Valenti's argument is all the evidence any sane person should need to see that the world has gone crazy when it comes to sex.
Over the past thirty years Western civilization has undergone a near total transformation in sexual morality. Sex education programs assume that teenagers (and increasingly pre-teens as well) simply will be involved in sexual activity. Sexual purity, abstinence, and sexual denial are written off as unrealistic, unfair, and repressive.
Even so, the Virgin Lips Movement will come as a shock to some older evangelicals. For older Christians, the expectation was, as the Bible makes clear, for sex to wait until marriage. As for kissing, that was considered to be another matter altogether. To some of these older Christians, the Virgin Lips Movement sounds like overkill and over-reaction.
Listen to Katy Kruger, as reported in The Tennessean: "It was so important to me because I felt a kiss was something very intimate, and something I wanted to give only to one man, to my husband," said Kruger. "He thought it was so special, and he was so proud to be able to be the only man I will ever kiss."
While sexual abstinence until monogamous marriage is the biblical standard, these young Christians see virginity as requiring more than reserving sexual intercourse for marriage. They see kissing as an act of physical intimacy -- a gateway drug to greater physical intimacy and involvement.
As any minister who works with youth and young adults knows, the "how far is too far question" is a constant. The Virgin Lips Movement represents a determination to stop that train before it leaves the station, so to speak.
Consider this: In the space of little more than a single generation, we have seen the breaking down of virtually every social and cultural support for sexual abstinence. Arousal and intimacy come with the romantic longing that marks the deepening relationship between a man and a woman. That young couple no longer courts on the porch swing with the girl's parents sitting inside and very close at hand. Now, most young couples face the temptation of romantic contexts in which intimacy--and this means sexual intimacy--is a likely outcome.
The Virgin Lips Movement represents a serious effort to push back against this expectation and to create boundaries that will protect virtue and honor marriage.
Alec Cort, Minister to Students at Tulip Grove Baptist Church in Nashville, told the paper that a significant percentage of the young couples in his ministry have taken the "no kiss until marriage" pledge. "I have always encouraged those people," he said. "It sets the ultimate bar." Well, perhaps not an ultimate bar, but a recognizably significant bar.
There is no explicit biblical ban on premarital kissing, but any honest person knows that there are kisses than can only be considered sexual, naturally leading to the sex act itself. These young Christians are not afraid of their bodies, they are afraid of sinning against God and losing something precious to themselves as well.
In a world that has made monogamy an embarrassment, these young Christians want to offer their future spouse the gift of monogamous lips. In an age of instant sexual gratification, these young believers believe that true lips wait. This is what a counter-revolution looks like.
As the father of four daughters, two married and one getting married on May 11th, I think this article is great. I grew up in the middle of the sexual revolution of the 1960's and wish I would have had the courage to commit myself like these young people are doing. I was too easily swayed by peer pressures.
Had the theology of the body been taught properly in the 60’s after Vatican 2, the landscape of this country would have been very different, me thinks. The very fact that these young people not only get it, but embrace it tells me there is hope for the future. There is not a clearer,better illustrated image of “ and a little child shall lead them” for our day than these young people.
I have 3 sons. 1 is getting married in Jan, one is going into seminary the following August, and my 15 year old has not started dating yet(he doesn’t feel ready yet, as our family believes that we date(court) to find a spouse, and he isn’t looking for one at this time), but I will certainly let him see this article.
I also grew up in a church culture that was very legalistic that said, “You can do anything up to this point...and no further.” And so heavy petting etc... was the norm. When I look back on it, all I feel is embarrasment and regret. This behavior, of course, missed the whole point of being pure in heart and living for God.
IBT *this isn’t realistic, this isn’t natural, this is twisted, and they’re lying and are going to do it anyway* crowd.
Well, it’s probably better than driving 60 mph towards the cliff and counting on the brakes working.
I know maybe three couples who've saved the first kiss for the altar. They seem to be VERY happy.
Saving all the physical stuff for marriage I think would put the emphasis on developing the friendship aspect of the relationship.
BTTT
Thank you. The 'rest of the story" is that one daughter was married this past January and now one in May. My future son-in-law is deploying to Iraq in June so they decided to speed up the process. Wow, talk about financial shock!
Thank you and your family for your service.
Yep, four girls...that is a bank buster to be sure.
I tried to convince them to start a new tradition. Dad and mom pay for the first wedding, then that daughter takes over and pays for the next, then that one pays for the next and so on. I was noted down.
Make that voted instead of noted.
I like this idea: mom and dad pay for the license and a cake, punch and few mints.
Anything else is up to whoever the couple can talk into paying.
/scrooge
Ping for later reading.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
LOL!
I know a few couples too who have gone down this path. All are happily married, and have seeminly good relationships.
Some of them took it to further extremes than others. One couple would never allow themselves to be alone together, always had another person present. Other couples dated...just did not have physical contact.
If you think about it, it probably sets up a good long term relationship because they are forced to “get to know each other” by communicating. Using time spent together to communicate rather than to just have concentrate on physical satisfaction.
My sister and I got married within 6 weeks of each other. My poor parents...it wasn’t the cost, back then (1980) you had a nice spread of food, but the receptions weren’t as lavish as now, and friends chipped in to help with flowers, etc. It was just the planning aspect that was overwhelming.
But all involved survived, LOL. And marriages are still intact. 4 daughters, in our family, and between the 4 of us we have now been married a total of 118 years (35, 29,29,25) Of course our folks have been married for 60 years...so they have us beat!
Personally, I was into 'concentrate on physical satisfaction' mode back then ... big time.
My wife & I recently celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary.
It should also encourage the couple to *get* married, rather than putting it off forever. It could even save money on weddings! It seems to be a "given" in society these days that the wedding is tremendously important, while marriage itself is meaningless.
This rings of Islamicism. What next? Churches with their own “Sexual Purity Police”?
This is foisted as “greatness” and “holiness” and “counterrevolutionary”??
And people wonder why religious conservativism have the credibility of the John Birch Society.
Legalism can always be a problem I admit.
Some of the religiously legalistic people out there were among the most perverted I ever met, but sincere purity-virginity is a possibility and we should not be angry about it.
In Tennessee its likely you’ll find it there.
To assume that everyone is a sexual animal reveals something about where you’re mind is.
I try to keep my mind out of there, but I’m not perfect.
I picked up perversion at an early age from legalistic humanists and fundamentalists alike.
I’m now unlearning it.
This is foisted as “greatness” and “holiness” and “counterrevolutionary”??
And people wonder why religious conservativism have the credibility of the John Birch Society.
Which part of VOLUNTARY is so difficult for you to understand?
NOBODY is forcing this on ANYONE. It is only those who want to make immorality the norm that would not consider this admirable.
Some people are terribly threatened by the idea that others might choose to avoid immorality. It’s very interesting, as a psychological phenomenon.
Good point. I certainly don’t think that a “no kissing” pledge is for everyone, I know that I would NEVER have considered it, but that is no reason to ridicule those who do. It is very telling that anytime Christians VOLUNTARILY make moral vows they are compared to Muslims.
*****************
I would guess that you are far from alone in this.
Great article.
I’ve got no problem with virginity. In fact, I highly approve for unmarried persons. But I don’t know. This may be a little bit too far.
Still, none of my business, either way.
Yes, it is.
I'm not fully sold on "pledges" as a concept. However, I do think it's positive for church programs, in particular, to encourage unmarried young people to avoid physical intimacy. If there's a moral or spiriritual benefit to physical promiscuity, whether that's kissing or sexual intercourse, I haven't heard of it!
As I said in an earlier post, maybe if the option of "benefits" outside marriage were less available, young people would get married before they're so old they have to pay someone to have children for them.
Kissing is now immoral.
Thanks for making my point.
It depends on the context, as is true of any physical intimacy.
********************
I think you are quite right.
What is your religion, if you don’t mind saying?
Why? Would you prefer that all the young single couples are just a bunch of sluts, having sex without regard like a bunch of alley cats?
This is foisted as “greatness” and “holiness” and “counterrevolutionary”??
It does take great strength of character to not follow the crowd. Avoiding immorality IS holiness. In today's world it is counter-revolutionary.
Jesus said that even to lust after a woman in your heart is adultery. If this keeps people from that, why is it a problem?
And people wonder why religious conservativism have the credibility of the John Birch Society.
Only with people like you posting comments like this. If you're going to portray others in that light, you're the very reason people have a warped and twisted view of Christianity or conservatism.
And the long and short of it is, why is it any of your business if others CHOOSE this route? Why condemn them?
FWIW, no sooner spoken.....
You didn’t fail to disappoint.
If someone knows their limitations, then more power to them.
I know a girl who waited for her first kiss for her husband and they have a wonderful marriage.
Any time a conservative or a Christian makes a decision about anything, the liberals will compare them to muslims. It seems to be going around these days.
OK, I can appreciate regarding the kiss as deeply intimate and reserving it for marriage... but if that is the idea, then why are they doing in front of hundreds of people?
Ping to read later
I NEVER suggested any such thing.
What a concept. Being friends with the person you marry. Goodness knows where it could lead. The marriage might even work out in rough times if it's not based simply on physical urges.
Can't have any of that marriage working out stuff, now can we? Why that's just breeding grounds for conservatives.
Of course in the earlier 20th century it was assumed that a girl who kissed on the first date was ‘fast’. In the Victorian period iot was assumed that people who kissed on the lips were at least engaged to be married (virtually an unbreakable compact) or were close relatives (kissing cousins). I have read some reports that prostitutes won’t kiss on the lips because that is ‘too intimate’, more so than what they will do.
The attempt to cause confusion by saying, “Kissing is immoral” is perhaps not *entirely* due to the poster. We should take care to observe that nothing happens in a vacuum (except physics, I guess). If I kiss my husband, that’s not immoral. If any of you does, or if any of you kisses me, it most probably is. Even as an apparently impersonal social gesture, one needs to consider the intention of the participants and the impression made on others.
In the context of a romantic relationship between unmarried young people, it can be assumed that the purpose and effect is to demonstrate, and to stimulate, sexual desire. That’s not a good idea, under the circumstances, at least according to Christian morality as expressed in the Bible and generally practiced by Christians throughout history. It’s been understood that sexual expression, and not just sexual intercourse, is reserved for marriage.
I’m a drunkard. Oh, that’s nationality.
Thanks for making my point.
******************
How did your misrepresentation of wagglebee's post make your point?
I’m sorry to hear that.
Great perspective.
Kissing, beyond your social peck on the cheek between older ladies wearing hats, creates the expectation of sex. I seen posts from men here saying that it’s “Not fair” for wives to engage in any physically affectionate gestures unless they’re going to have sex.
“Traditionally,” young women have used this phenomenon to get the men to get married, but however natural and practical that is, it’s not the ideal for Christians.
You’ve failed today’s Culture Quiz.
The line is a quote from Casablanca.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.