Sex Ed Gone Wild

The New York City public schools are introducing a new, salacious sex education curriculum which, though optional, is still rousing controversy. Why? Well we could start with the fact that, according to NBC, the co-ed classing include "role playing on how to resist sexual advances and on "negotiating condom use." What parents don't relish the idea of sending their son or daughter into the classroom to act out their first 'condom-use negotiation' in the presence of their peers? That appears to be only the tip of the iceberg. Outside of the classes, students have no less unsettling homework assignments: go to the store and take notes on important condom features like lubrication before you seek out a clinic that treats STDs and write out its confidentiality policy. It is important, after all, that students be prepared for when they get their first STD and need it treated without their parents finding out. The stated goal of the new curriculum, according to the deputy mayor, is "to help kids to delay the onset of sexual activity, and if they choose to engage in sexual activity, to do it in a healthy way" neglecting--by accidental oversight I assume--to add, "and if they don't do it in a healthy way, to get their crotch rot treated without mom finding out."

I certainly am not on the streets beating the drum for abstinence only education. After all, why should we expect a world full of non-Christians to accept the sexual morals of the church? Without faith as a moral compass, the motivation for avoiding premarital, adolescent intercourse is essentially non-existent. Frankly, speaking for those of us not so far removed from the heated, hormonal passions of youth, even faith provides only a paperthin preventative. Still, even as the sexual mores of society evolve such that an active, robust teen sexuality is becoming accepted, there are features of this curriculum which should give pause.

It seems to assume and affirm a kind of sexual libertinism. The guiding principle is "whatever you want is fine, provided you're doing it safely." Consider, for example, that they are giving flash cards to children as young as eleven to teach them the dangers of "intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant, mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex and anal sex." Weren't you thinking about how to have safe anal sex at eleven? Me neither. If that weren't enough, the curriculum directs children to such resources as Columbia University's lascivious manifestation of Dear Abby called "Go Ask Alice!" Wonderfully open-minded Alice gives this advice to a homosexual teen:

Leading HIV research and care organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), say that the risk of being infected with HIV via receiving oral sex without a condom is virtually impossible.

Where your braces are concerned, if you are giving oral sex, proceed with caution: be gentle with partners and avoid sudden, erratic movements (both of you). If you decide not to take your partner's penis into your mouth, your lips, tongue, saliva, and breath can be wonderful sources of pleasure.

Admittedly, that unnerves me more than it might most, but surely most of us can find common ground when Alice reluctantly tells one seeker that sexual contact with an animal is probably wrong in practice but is normal to fantasize about. I confess that at the sexually vigorous age of twelve the concept of sex with other people was novel and mysterious enough. Sex with donkeys hadn't occurred to me. Then again, I didn't have Alice to plant the idea in my head that it was normal. I also didn't have her to help me learn how to massage my prostate, locate the clitoris, or give me a script for phone sex. Amusingly, the man with the prostate question was concerned that his question might be too kinky. He clearly didn't see the bestiality question or, for that matter, the poor coprophiliac who Alice had to disappoint by telling that eating feces, while not poisonous, increases the risk of disease. Lucky for him, its still okay to play with scat provided it is done safely.

That seems to be the theme here: whatever you do--eating feces, fantasizing about wombats, fellating unprotected with braces--is all good just so long as it is safe. The curriculum and the resources it recommends affirm no socio-sexual norms except safety. While I realize that safety needs to be the primary focus of sexual education, there is a distinction between "This is how to have sex without getting pregnant" and "This is how to sexually gratify yourself with your partners feces while minimizing the risk of disease." It introduces children to sexually aberrant (if I can be so judgmental of the woman who gets aroused by men who "adjust" themselves in public) to which they may not otherwise have been exposed and then tacitly approves their normalcy by only commenting on the safety of such behavior. It is precisely this philosophy which "abstinence only" proponents fear will create a society even more consciously enslaved to sexual libertinism. As a culture, it should cause us great alarm that anyone believes (perhaps correctly) that eleven year olds need to know the risks of mutual masturbation, twelve year olds the perils of anal sex, and high schoolers the best way to conceal their sexual activity from their parents. One can only hope that, if the public schools really are still public, public morality will prevail. Then again, maybe this is a sign that it has.

Re-Reading Revelation: Letters (Chs. 2-3)

After promising the readers a prophecy of things to come in the opening lines of his text, John takes a brief aside to record letters to the churches which are less like prophesies and more like sermons. It is perhaps telling that after the first chapter focuses so keenly on the persecution suffered by Jesus, John, and the churches these letters are not primarily calm reassurances of the seven churches but strongly worded indictments. In a reverse of the structure of Amos--who first directs his attentions to God's enemies before turning viciously on God's people--the frightful Jesus of the first chapter, as the author of the letters, takes aim at his own kingdom even though we all know that his sights will ultimately be set on her enemies.

Amid accolades for their staid endurance under hardship, Jesus peppers the letters with biting imprecations. The Ephesians have forgotten their first love, and, if they cannot get their act together, Jesus promises to come and "remove your lampstand from its place." Pergamum and Thyatira are dens of sexual iniquity, with the latter harboring a seductive prophetess. Of the church in Laodicea he writes, "you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." And if those words to the "lukewarm" Ladocieans are not strong enough, he says of those in Sardis that they are "dead."

The purpose here is obviously not to rain down unqualified condemnation on the churches, and certainly any reader should anticipate--and rightly--that infinitely more forceful judgment is just a page turn away for those who persecute Christ's imperfect churches. The point, then, is to set the right attitude for John's audience. It would be all too easy and altogether inappropriate for the churches to take a divine pledge of fire and brimstone for their enemies and to adopt an air of unjustified self-righteousness. God's judgment is coming not because the churches are perfect but because God is perfect, and Jesus makes clear from the beginning that any hint of self-glory, any impulse to rest on their spiritual laurels would be dangerous.

Instead, he delivers a message of perseverance to the churches which ought to convict contemporary readers as well. Over and over in the letters he repeats his promise to the churches--they will get new names, eat from the tree of life, be spared the second death, sit on a heavenly throne, and more--but he precludes almost every promise with some variation on the phrase "to the one who conquers." It is not enough that Thyatira has endured thus far, that Ephesus once loved God truly, that Pergamum did not deny Jesus' name in the days of Antipas, or that you can remember a time when your faith was strong. In a book which is so often touted as being about "the end," the initial emphasis is not on will happen at the end or when the end will come but on how Christians are to live until the end. The first duty of these suffering Christians, and of all Christians, was not the condemnation of their enemies or dreams of escape into an eternal home but living righteous lives of faith. Jesus forcefully turns the focus of the churches away from his promised justice and onto their own need for personal and corporate repentance. It is almost as if Jesus is playing on his own teaching in Matthew 7, "We're going to deal with the speck in the world's eye, but first let's have a word about the plank in your own."

*****

For a full list of "Re-reading Revelation" posts, see Re-reading Revelation: Statement of Purpose.

Re-Reading Revelation: Encountering Jesus (Ch. 1)

Significantly, the first verse of Revelation begins by rooting the entire text immediately in Christ and his authority. The first three words (five in English) rapidly establish that what follows is not a word from John himself but "the revelation of Jesus Christ." It should not be surprising, therefore, as Jesus takes center stage that what we read in Revelation is not only a revelation belonging to Jesus but a revelation of Jesus himself. John is writing to churches that are hurting in some form or another, a fact which he makes clear in presenting his own credentials. Immediately upon the first mention of John's name, he identifies himself as the one who "bore witness," the Greek for which is quickly becomes a technical term from which we get our English word "martyr." As he starts in the first person, John again immediately identifies himself as "your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." John knows that his audience is suffering and wants them to know that he suffers alongside them.

It is unsurprising then that for this persecuted author writing to a persecuted audience the first image of the savior for which they suffer is so crucial. After his introduction, John spends most of the first chapter describing his initial encounter with the celestial Jesus. It is immediately apparent that this is not the Jesus on whose breast John lay at the last supper, at least not in appearance. The "son of man" that John encounters is like something out of an apocalyptic prophecy with woolen hair, flaming eyes, bronze feet, and a roaring voice, audible apparently in spite of the double-edged sword protruding from his mouth. It is understandable, if a bit melodramatic, that John should all "at his feet as though dead." Frankly, the encounter would frighten most of us out of our right minds. In a single motion, however, this son of man reveals that he is the same compassionate Son of Man whom John knew. He reaches out, touches the prostrate John, and says "Fear not."

In this paradoxical image of our Lord and Savior--an appropriate title--as both terrible and merciful is the heart of the picture of Christ which will be echo throughout the rest of Revelation. It is an encounter with the divine which spoke to the heart of John, tried to the limits of endurance, and to the churches as they suffered unspecified trials. They served a Lord who was compassionate without being weak, a Savior who was terrible without being malicious. He declares his sovereignty; "I am the first and the last." He reveals his sympathy; "I died, and behold I am alive forevermore." He reiterates his promise; "I have the keys of Death and Hades." He is a suffering king, perfectly suited for a kingdom beset on all sides.

This encounter should continue to resonate with us as often as we strive for our faith, be it against worldly powers or against spiritual ones. We can be reminded by this image of Jesus, bursting dramatically onto the narrative scene of Revelation, that we do not serve an impotent Lord nor an apathetic Savior. Ours is the Christ who reveals himself to John, "who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom." He will come and will make trivial the demons which haunt us because he loves us and because he has in him the power to actualize that love. It is a message of hope not for some distant point in chronology but in a living God who is right now, in this moment, ready to bless those who read the words of his prophecy and who keep to them.

*****

For a full list of "Re-reading Revelation" posts, see Re-reading Revelation: Statement of Purpose.

Re-Reading Revelation: Statement of Purpose

There is perhaps no more contentious issue in biblical studies than how to interpret Revelation. There are certainly more important issues, more uplifting issues, more fruitful issues for our examination, but for whatever reason--most likely because the cryptic nature of the book allows for such a breadth of interpretation--nothing inspires the kind of doctrinal knockdown-dragout fights that Revelation does. Today, of all days, is the perfect day to illustrate this, as I assume that once again Harold Camping's predictions will have fallen short of expectations. No matter if you are a radio evangelist, a theologian, an exegete, a minister, a layman, or (as I am) a historian, one can easily weary by looking at contemporary and historical disputes over premillennialism versus postmillennialism versus amillennialism versus millennialism and more. At a more basic level, there are preterists and historicists and idealists and futurists and probably -ists so remote in their thinking that they have yet to find a label. A thousand issues which ultimately transcend Revelation inevitably get bogged down in its enigmatic imagery.

In a recent discussion with someone about a thoroughgoing preterist approach to the text, I made the suggestion that we might all be better off if we could just set aside the eschatological questions we bring to the text and read Revelation for the many truths it reveals about God: who He is, what He does, and how we ought to respond to Him. In reflecting on that conversation, I realized that it had not been since my early youth--ignorant as I was of the complex of controversial questions which the book generated--that I had read through Revelation for anything other than polemical purposes.

I propose to remedy that now and in the process to share what I believe are some of the eternal (and incontestable) truths which Revelation has to offer readers that have little or nothing to do with the what, the when, or the how of the end of the world. As a disclaimer, I should clarify that I do not think that Revelation is totally without anything to say on these matters. Clearly, the text raises important questions about God's ultimate plan for the world, questions that require serious thought. I am by no means a full-fledged idealist (or really a full-fledged anything). I do believe, however, that there are ideals which the author of Revelation, assumed to be John, embeds in the text, those that he wants to teach to his audience and those which are implicit by virtue of their common faith in a single God. It should not be forgotten that while the eschatological questions which dominate the study of Revelation are certainly valid, they are probably not primary. John was, after all, writing to comfort and strengthen an audience in a time of intense trial. He was not writing an academic treatise on the end times. The approach that will be taken here will be to look at Revelation as a spiritual text from an apostle to the languishing churches. The truths which will be the focus will be those that resonated with the foremost desire of the audience for salvation, for vindication, and for a glimpse (a revelation, if you will) of the God whom they served. In re-reading Revelation with these specific principles in mind, Christians can be enriched and find strength and solidarity in a text which has been the source of so much divisiveness.

List of Entries:

Encountering Jesus (Ch. 1)
Letters (Chs. 2-3)
Throne Room (Chs. 4-5)
Seals and Trumpets (Chs. 6-8)
Two Woes (Ch. 9)
Kingdom Come (Chs. 10-11)
Great Battle (Chs. 12-16)
Fall of Babylon (Chs. 17-18)
Joy and Judgment (Chs. 19-20)All Things New (Chs. 21-22)
An Invitation (Ch. 22)

Songs of the Church (Excursus 1)
Three Angels (Excursus 2)

Not Cow News

In Other News

In supporting his new bill designed to bring back firing squads--or, as he puts it, lead cocktails--as a means of execution, Florida's Rep. Brad Drake confesses, "I have no desire to humanely respect those that are inhumane."

In ironic and unrelated news, a new study published Molecular Psychiatry found that depression alters brain chemistry in such a way that people often turn hate for others into self-loathing.

Blame to Go Around

A recent USA Today poll shows that more Americans blame the federal government than "Wall Street" for their financial plight, if only marginally more. In fact, while 78% seem willing to ascribe a great deal of the blame to Wall Street, only slightly more, at 87%, believe the government also shoulders much of the blame. While the article focuses on the fact that more than twice as many Americans answered that they blame the federal government more for the bad economy, the more important feature of the polls seems to be that the overwhelming majority of Americans seem to have the good sense to blame both. After all, if there is anything that can match the federal government avarice and malicious self-interest, it is Wall Street. The two are locked in an eternal cosmic game of one-upmanship when it comes to playing free and loose with other people's money.

What the article seems to be missing, however, is a statistic for the number of people who think that they themselves are to blame for the financial crisis. In fairness, neither the government nor Wall Street are actually sentient, independent entities. They are both collectives of people who do what their constituencies want, be that the voting public or consumers and shareholders. More importantly still, people seem to be ignoring the fact that the American government and American financial institutions learned fiscal responsibility at the feet of the masters, the American public. We're all quick to point out how unconscionable it is for the government to borrow forty cents of every dollar it spends, but we don't seem at all concerned with the countless millions of dollars which the American public has amassed in credit card debt, car loans, mortgages, and students loans. The whole twenty-first century financial paradigm is structured around the maxim that you can get it today and pay for it later. I recently read an article in a waiting room magazine about how revolutionary the introduction of GMAC was because it freed people of the burden of saving up to buy cars and allowed them to purchase on credit. The idea was distasteful to Ford and his antiquated fiscal sensibilities. Now, it is the idea of paying for a car, or much of anything, upfront which is anomalous.

It is perhaps time for Americans to realize that there is plenty of blame to go around, to accept the brazen hypocrisy of those of us with student loans or credit cards or mortgages attempting to lecture the government or Wall Street about the reckless abandon with which they spend other people's money. It is especially time for Americans to stop wondering about whether or not the financial system is "personally fair to them" and begin to ask whether or not they, the public, are not equally to blame for a government, a financial sector, an entire culture that thrives on fiscal irresponsibility