Sexual Assault, College, and its Causes

• The Association of American Universities on Monday released the overall results of a survey that asked students at 27 universities about their experiences with sexual assault and sexual misconduct, drawing responses from more than 150,000 students. 

• More than 20 percent of female undergraduates at an array of prominent universities said this year they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct, echoing findings elsewhere, according to one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence.

• The survey found that 23 percent of undergraduate women and 5 percent of undergraduate men said they were victims of non-consensual sexual contact – ranging from penetration to sexual touching — due to force or incapacitation. Eleven percent of undergraduate women said they were victims of non-consensual penetration or attempted penetration… 20 percent of students said sexual assault and misconduct is very or extremely problematic on their own campus.

What can account for this epidemic? One thoughtful respondent appropriately commented:

• I don't for a minute want to minimize the roll that drunkenness plays in campus sexual assaults, but drunkenness on college campuses is not new… What is new on college campuses across the nation, as a result of the explosive growth of the World Wide Web, is college facilitated access to a "smorgasbord" of hardcore pornography that depicts the abuse, degradation, and exploitation of females. 

However true this might be, there is also another consideration. The normalization of almost any form of sexual acting-act is routinely promoted. In a New York Times Op-Ed, Charles M. Blow glowingly affirmed Miley Cyrus’ statements:

• “I’m very open about it — I’m pansexual.”

• I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult — anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.”

For Blow, these statements represent what sexuality should be about – “casual,”  “carefree,” and non-judgmental sex.

• There was something about the casual, carefree-ness of the statements that I found both charming and revolutionary. It took a happy-go-lucky sledgehammer to the must-fit-a-box binary that constrains and restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.

Since the NYT doesn’t discuss the down-side of the sexual revolution, we can assume that they too regard uncommitted sex as something that should be fun, playful, “happy-go-lucky,” and perhaps even a bit mischievous – something that our college students can readily applaud.

Blow rejects the traditional approach to sexuality as sacred, as something that “restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.” How ironic! It is the media and the universities which have silenced and struck down any message counter to the rampant sexual permissiveness and experimentation. Does the university offer any talks on the value of chastity? On traditional marriage? Instead, such discussions are taboo, routinely screamed down, and even penalized. Meanwhile, polyamory and other unsustainable practices are given free range to entice the minds of the susceptible.

However, it is Blow’s and Cyrus’ message, loudly proclaimed on almost every campus, that has helped to unleash sexual experimentation – the exploration of one’s sexuality. One popular form of sexual exploration is, understandably, forceful, bodily, sexual proselytizing. Well, isn’t it natural enough?

Isn’t it true that everyone wants and needs sex? What then is the problem? Sexual taboos, of course! Well then, what’s wrong with penetrating through these taboos in a persuasive, although somewhat aggressive manner? Perhaps these sexual trend-setters have even convinced themselves that they are providing a needful service to their victims? After all, the pedophiles have convinced themselves of this – the children a better-off because of them!

Behavior can no more be separated from belief than life from blood. If our youth are taught the primacy of choice above everything else, they will exercise their choice, albeit harmfully. If they are taught that their nature should govern their behavior, they will act out according to their nature. However, if they are taught that they must govern their natural impulses, and when they do not, they violate heaven’s dictates, they will think twice. (Also, our law-makers and universities will think twice!) However, this has become the forbidden message, the message that must be silenced.  

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (SSM) AND ITS BIBLICAL “SUPPORT”

In a New York Times editorial, Push Within Religions for Gay Marriage Gets Little Attention, Samuel Freedman cites several who attempt to biblically defend SSM.

• “Dignity, the high value of each individual person, their immeasurable value, their sacred value, is in its roots a Christian value,” said the Rev. David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Macon, Ga. “Dignity language is a widely used cognate for the idea that every person is made in God’s image and is sacred for that reason."

Does the fact that we all have an inherent dignity and worth, having been created in the image of God, justify SSM? If it does, then this image can also be appealed to to justify any number of behaviors and institutions like adultery, pedophilia, polyamory, incest, bestiality and even murder. Instead, it is because we have inherent dignity that we shouldn't defile it by sinning.

While bearing the image of God dignifies all human beings, it certainly does not dignify all behaviors.

Freedman then cites Rabbi Margaret Moers Wenig's argumentation in support of SSM:

• "Religious arguments in support of marriage equality matter because religious arguments have long been used against not only marriage equality but also against gay people’s very right to love and even to live.”

If gays have a right to marry, from where does it come. Certainly not from God! There is not a single verse in the Bible or in the writings of any major religion giving even the slightest support for SSM.

While a nation may grant SSM - and some Western nations have done so - this doesn't address the issue of whether gays have an intrinsic right to SSM or whether nations have a moral obligation to legally provide SSM.

Can SSM be justified pragmatically? Certainly not in terms of the welfare of children! Countless studies have demonstrated that children fare best with two biological parents.

Besides, in view of the high incidence of STDs, substance abuse, mental health issues, suicide, and greatly abbreviated lifespans among gays, pragmatism should argue against gay adoption and even SSM.

Wenig mentions, "gay people’s very right to love" who they want. Should society stand in judgment over this by regulating our relationships? Perhaps not, but this is not the issue. Even before the Supreme Court decision, gays could freely affiliate with whomever.

Instead, SSM is about coercing the nation to endorse the gay lifestyle and is not about who they can live with. Instead, SSM has been about:

1. Training children that this highly destructive lifestyle is a reasonable option.

2. Penalizing any who disagree, even to the point of losing their business, employment or even their freedom if they refuse to pay highly exorbitant fines.

3. Undermining First Amendment guaranteed rights.

4. Placing children in jeopardy.

Freedman then cites a Dr. Hendricks:

• "The virulent opposition [against SSM] can’t be sustained by an informed reading of the [biblical] text,” said Dr. Hendricks, who is now a visiting scholar in the religion department at Columbia University. “The opposition to homosexuality has a basis in culture that’s masquerading as religion. The textual evidence is ambiguous, at best. So the role of Bible scholars who support marriage equality is to show that there’s no biblical reason to oppress gay people. They are children of God.”

It is not a matter of "oppressing gay people," as this inflammatory language claims. Rather, it's a matter of legalizing a lifestyle and an institution that has repeatedly been shown to be highly self-destructive.

More importantly, is the biblical text "ambiguous" in regards to homosexuality? Hardly! Kevin DeYoung has written:

• Even many revisionist scholars acknowledge that the Bible is uniformly negative toward same-sex activity. The gay Dutch scholar Pim Pronk, after admitting that many Christians are eager to see homosexuality supported by the Bible, states plainly, “In this case that support is lacking.”[2] Although he doesn’t think moral positions must be dependent on the Bible (which is why he can support homosexual behavior), as a scholar he recognizes that “wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned. … Rejection is a foregone conclusion; the assessment of it nowhere constitutes a problem.”[3] Pronk recognizes that wherever the Bible speaks on this issue, it speaks with one voice. Likewise, Dan O. Via, in arguing for the revisionist view opposite Robert Gagnon, acknowledges, “Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.”[4] No positive argument for homosexuality can be made from the Bible, only arguments that texts don’t mean what they seem to mean, and that specific texts can be overridden by other considerations.

If the Bible had been ambiguous on the subject of homosexuality, these pro-gay scholars would have also claimed that the Bible is ambiguous, but honesty prevented them from resorting to such an unsupportable argument.

What the Bible Says and doesn’t Say about Homosexuality

 I just joined a Facebook group called “Liberal Evangelicals.” Unsurprisingly, several postings wrote positively of same-sex marriage (SSM). I therefore asked:

• In view of the biblical testimony against homosexuality and the fact that the church has never affirmed homosexuality, what is the best Christian evidence in favor of SSM?

One responded:

• I reject both of your premises. There is no biblical testimony against homosexuality and the Church did in fact perform SS unions in some parts of western Europe between the 5th and 8th centuries. The stark opposition to "sodomy" only began in fervor in the middle of the 14th century, when the Sodom story started being interpreted as a denunciation of male homosexuality.

Did some early churches perform SS unions? I had my doubts. However, his other claims were clearly erroneous.

Denying that Sodom had been destroyed because of homosexuality, many advocates cite Ezekiel 16:49:

• Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

No mention of homosexuality! However, these advocates neglect to cite the next verse:

• They were haughty and did an abomination before me. (49:50)

“Abomination” usually refers to sexual sin. Jude 6-7 is more explicit about Sodom’s sin:

• And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The respondent’s other claim - “there is no biblical testimony against homosexuality” - is directly contradicted by the evidence:

• Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Leviticus 18:22-24)

• If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13-16)

• Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened… Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:21-27)

• Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (Cor. 6:9-11)

Besides these verses, there are many others that speak against homosexuality. How then can this respondent and many others deny the biblical teachings against homosexuality? Even more seriously, how can “evangelicals” misrepresent what God has uttered in His Scriptures?

Some have argued that Jesus would have received adulterers and homosexuals. Indeed, but He would also have required them to repent of their sins (Luke 13:1-5; John 8:1-11).

Sadly, we often confuse love with endorsement of questionable behavior. However, James had warned us to be hesitant about our endorsement of cultural trends:

• You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? (James 4:4-5)

As the Apostles had confessed, it is better to obey God rather than man! Another “evangelical” answered:

• I would contend that the burden of evidence lies on those who argue that same-sex marriage, if consecrated by the church, is somehow offensive to God. 

Although he is right about the “burden of evidence,” I think that the evidence is there, and the burden now rests with such evangelicals.

World Vision, Same-Sex Marriage and the Weightiness of what we Believe

How should we vote and judge our leaders? Richard Stearns, the president of the mega-Christian-charity, World Vision (WV), doesn’t believe that our biblical views are relevant. According to the Religion News Service, he protested:

• I’m not telling people where I stand on the same-sex marriage issue because I don’t think it’s relevant.

Meanwhile, he announced on March 24, 2014 that WV:

• Would allow its U.S. branch to hire employees in same-sex marriages. [However] Stearns announced on March 26 that the World Vision board had made a mistake and would reverse the controversial decision. (World, April 19, 2014, 42)

So any connection? This hasty reversal doesn’t seem to have been a matter of the board conducting an exploratory Bible study. Rather, it was because “protests followed” their initial announcement. These came from contributors. Therefore, if the opinions of these protestors change, WV will most likely revert once again to their original proclamation.

Does what a leader believes matter? Perhaps this is a better question – “Is there anything more important than what we believe?” Clearly, what we believe is foundational to how we live. What the WV board believes has directly impacted their decisions. Here’s another small example:

• A former director for international relations at World Vision estimated as many as 20 percent of staff overseas were Muslims. (45)

Without knowing more, it’s hard to quibble about this. Perhaps these employees were mainly security guards and had little influence of the provision of WV’s supposedly Christian services. However, there have been some unquestionably shady activities: “It awarded $300,000 to Sojourners,” a “Christian” organization which has a low view of Scripture and supports same-sex marriage. WV also “granted $242,786 to Save the Children in 2010.” However, this group says:

• “Adolescents should be provided with information and access to safe abortion services when legal.” (45)

In whatever we do, we must glorify our Lord (1 Peter 4:11). We do not glorify Him if we enable what is an abomination to Him, whether it’s a matter of promoting sin or false worship. Besides, if we compromise our Christian witness, we ultimately will hurt and confuse those we seek to help.

WV was also understandably criticized for “producing Easter cards for sponsored children that don’t mention the resurrection.” What better time to proclaim the fact that Jesus rose for us! We are left to wonder that since WV would not mention the resurrection in Easter cards, whether they would mention it at any other time.

What then does it mean to be Christian if not to offer Christ to the world? Are we not to be ambassadors for Christ by conveying the Gospel message (2 Cor. 5:21)? If we provide material benefit without providing Christ, we are giving a false message – that Christ isn’t so relevant!

And what should we think of our Christian leaders who have “compared the issue of same-sex marriage to disagreements over baptism or women in church leadership,” thereby demeaning the weightiness of sexual sin (1 Cor. 6:19)?

What our leaders believe will determine everything else about them. We have a right to know and they have a duty to disclose.