Open letter to evangelical churches

arising from:

Down to Earth Discipleship

Some practical aspects of Christian discipleship for unmarried young adults

This MS amended to June 2010.

In the course of three years writing this book we (the authors of the book) have been concerned that in some, and anecdotally many, evangelical churches in the UK, Australia and elsewhere there is an unhappy and disconcertingly large underclass of single people in their 20s to 30s. From our pastoral experience we believe that a major contributor to this situation is the teaching, or more often lack of it, on God's creation of us as sexual persons and how this should suitably play out in relationships before marriage. While other factors bear on this question, such as different numbers of men and women in many churches, this open letter comments on the situation as we have encountered it and ventures some suggestions.

We continue to see the problem manifest in two related respects: the expectation that an invitation to any 1:1 occasion is tantamount to a suggestion to 'go steady' (having ticked a lot of boxes), and second that any going steady (exclusive) relationship which breaks up is seen and felt as a failure, rather than a success (enabling both to move on to more suitable matches, drawing upon the wisdom and self-knowledge gained). The first creates great apprehension on both sides and a measure of social paralysis, the second is possibly one reason that Christian marriages fail as often as others (statistically) - the feasibility study does not allow a thumbs down without huge loss of face in this Christian community.

In a church context with captive audience who are known to be interested (to say the least) it should be possible to define some issues, without actually making rules (in unhelpful ways that some evangelicals are prone to!).

We are grateful to pastoral staff of one major church in particular who suggested drawing out this aspect of the book in this way.

A stark contrast
A good starting point is to acknowledge the contrast between the young unmarried people in the church community and the world around. This seems to have grown wider over the last few decades - since the time when many older church leaders were growing up and establishing their own life partnerships in marriage.

For very many teenagers today the main initiation or rite of passage from childhood into adolescence is their first sexual intercourse. This is seen as confirmation of their biological and social maturity, providing a sense of identity with a taste of intimacy at one level. Genital sexual activity is an integral part of adolescence for many, and this easily and naturally carries through to the 20s. However, conscientious Christians will draw upon an understanding of sex which gives it a very special place in a lifelong partnership and hence which places heavy restraints on their participation or indulgence in this premaritally. As a result they may feel deprived and be seen by non-Christian peers as wimps or losers, or even inviting questions abut their sexuality.

The church sometimes implicitly reinforces this negative perception with its teaching and yet does not reliably supply alternative - let alone more meaningful - rites of passage or group identification. Confirmation following infant baptism hardly compares - socially, emotionally or memorably! Nor generally does mature age baptism. This is a challenge to which your authors have no comprehensive answer, but acknowledge as a major factor framing the issues we discuss.

Church teaching on sexual relationships often assumes that those to whom it is addressed have grown up in full knowledge, if not full adherence to, Christian constraints on sexual expression outside marriage. But we must consider that it is the norm for those coming to faith to be very sexually experienced and without any sense of wrong in that. Hence it's important that they be greeted by the church with something more positive than accusatory finger wagging and authoritarian bible verses about casual sex (which are largely irrelevant anyway, if they come from a steady faithful relationship). The need is to commend and persuade of a better way of understanding and practicing sex.

Our book is written so as to expound the good sense in behaviour that is in tune with the way we are made, in God's image, and as sexual beings. The argument is mainly from that base, not a succession of texts. It does not attempt to canvass all that the Bible might say on the issues covered (though there are plenty of relevant references).

We consider that a high quality of Christian fellowship with wholesome social interaction is the principal real alternative to sexually-active uncommitted relationships, and the most basic one (which is why we devote the first chapter of the book to that). Something based here and which comes close to a general rite of passage in evangelical churches is commissioning and mentoring in youth leadership. This can signify a spiritual adulthood in taking responsibility for younger people, with opportunity for practical expression of love in service. But if not all are invited or conscripted to this, it is only a partial answer.

Regarding dating etc: In any church, we need a shared understanding of what is normal by way of dating, courtship, etc. It cannot just be a shared reaction against what is normal elsewhere in society. We need to define an envelope of "normal" behaviour and interaction, with anecdotes of all that is outside it.

Any church that expects its young unmarried young members to be chaste and stay out of bed with one another, but doesn't have a fair bit to say about masturbation as lust control and sexual management is really short-changing its young flock.

Young Christians are possibly more vulnerable to porn that their peers, due to the curiosity factor which is not assuaged in the normal course of life.

Compared with the condom culture of today, Christians do relationships the other way round, working towards a sexual consummation some distance away rather than treating sex as a sort of qualifying round or entrée in a relationship. The hedonistic enjoyment of sex has probably not changed for thousands of years, unless constrained by social or religious taboos.

Attitudes to sexual experience
Our focus is on unmarried Christians in their late teens and 20s. Any such person will properly have hormone-enhanced relationships as a major interest or even preoccupation, and this will likely have been their experience since puberty. The challenge in the church is to affirm these while encouraging self control, rather than communicating negative attitudes to sex.

In response to the worldly approach which cheapens sex by hedonism and selfishness, the church has often managed to turn something which is positive, good, wonderful and emotionally and socially fulfilling into a threat or even an object of dread for some of its unmarried members. For many, their sexuality has become more fraught than fun.

If a young Christian finds that their church context is petty and strictured rather than providing wholesome fellowship and credible teaching and encouragement in this area, then they may go in either of two unhelpful directions: the first is to suppress their sexuality, the second is to follow their natural inclinations without much restraint rather than trying to remain in line with God's purposes, so that they are then likely to stay outside the church. Both are tragic.

One effect of this wide difference between many older adolescents inside and outside the church is that for any Christian who is meaningfully connected to his or her peers, there is tremendous pressure to compromise. They see sexual enjoyment mostly without any immediate downside. Another effect is that we must assume that any adolescent or young adult converted to Christ is likely to be sexually experienced. Both these considerations need to affect what we teach and how.

On the compromise aspect, a survey commissioned by the Evangelical Alliance and reported by the Christian Medical Fellowship in July 2001 found that a third of young evangelical Christians believed in living together with a partner before marriage. This evidently shocked church leaders, who expected fewer than 10 per cent to support cohabitation. In total, 33 per cent of Christians aged 18 to 35 supported living together, compared with 82 per cent of non-Christians.

Arguably the church needs to be very much more positive about faithful premarital sexual relationships which lead to marriage, as distinct from its attitude to promiscuous casual sex. If it is seen to conflate the two its credibility is compromised. Cohabitation is widespread, and while there is a strong case to be made (as in Chapter 2) that this is much less than ideal, neither it nor other exclusive sexual relationships are wholly negative if they are embarked upon with a view to likely marriage commitment a year or two further down the track.

Cohabitation needs to be seen as de facto marriage, and to be taken as leading to the celebration and confirmation of commitment which marriage is. The church needs to encourage the couple to ground their loving in a commitment which is not merely a contract, but which is supported by wider community in everyday life and which acknowledges the transcendent dimension built into God's design for the one-flesh union. At the same time there needs to be pastoral recognition that there is some tentativeness involved, and hence the prime exhortation may need to be to "make up your minds", and allow for the possibility that the partners will go their separate ways.

Church communication on sexual relationships
(Here and in the book we use the term to mean relationships which are enhanced and energised by a person's sexuality. We do not imply intercourse.)
While it is not too hard to give advice to individuals in this context, the challenge of crafting teaching within the church which is both biblical and wise, not to mention persuasive, is far greater. It is hardly surprising then that your authors have encountered much evidence of deficiency or failure in compiling the book over two years.

Our focus has been on people in their late teens and 20s, after attitudinal and related problems have sometimes become chronic at a social level. While no church teaching on any subject can be expected to achieve full effect on all hearers, it seems that in this area there are some failures arising from a variety of identifiable causes, which we note below.

The following are some of the messages which we have found coming across to young unmarried people from their churches, whether intended or not:

Sex is an awkward rather than wonderful part of the way we are created by a loving God.

Sexuality is fraught and anything sexual is to be feared and avoided as far as possible.

All sexual thought or arousal is lust and should be avoided.

Masturbation is simply wrong.

Dating one to one is wrong, or at least very unwise, in case you get carried away.

The only permitted way to get to know members of the opposite sex is in groups.

Any physical contact in dating is wrong, even a kiss may be fraught.

A going steady relationship is destined for marriage unless something major derails it.

It is best to marry early rather than mature first.

Holiness of life requires one to repress sexual thoughts as much as possible.

Rules of conduct, rather than trust and self control, are the church's preoccupation.

Curiosity about sex is unhealthy.

We do not suggest that these are all totally wrong - each makes some sense in certain circumstances or to some degree - but there is a lot of nonsense here and widely perceived they tragically seem to cripple many young Christians emotionally and socially.¹ Some of the unhelpful nonsense arises from some American books which are promoted informally or by youth workers in place of sound teaching. (We recommend three or four rather good books on the subject, which happen to be American!)

Regarding the curiosity about sex, there needs to be open and frank teaching which removes at least part of the attraction of pornography. Porn has become a major issue, especailly for young males in the church, and it requires an intelligent response from and in the church.

Our broader concern is twofold: the disincentive for too many young Christians to engage in romantic relationships, and the disincentive to be thorough in the romantic feasibility study leading to engagement. The fact that in any situation many rise above the problems and find their way into happy marriages can obscure the dilemma of those who don't. The church need to make explicit the social expectations which promote healthy and gently progressive romantic engagements without unreal expectations or anxiety.

So, we suggest the following ten points as being a high priority to communicate among younger adult members of any church:
1. Expect to have (ie. in your thinking allow for the strong possibility that you will have) some 3 or 4 significant faithful romantic relationships before you find, and are confident in deciding upon, your life partner.
2. As well as socialising as much as possible in mixed groups, seek 1:1 opportunities with attractive members of the opposite sex simply to get to know them a bit better, and without either party having any expectation of it turning into a relationship (hopes are OK, not expectations!). Avoid trying to tick a lot of boxes at this stage.
3. Relax and enjoy these evenings or days simply for their own sake, while keeping under control within boundaries. To a degree you make such a relationship as you enjoy it - it's not just a matter of matching up characteristics.
4. Boundaries on physical intimacy need to be established by each person, and when in relationship, by each couple, but default is the waistline. At the same time, don't over-react to the norms of non-Christian peers. Sex is not dirty or merely sensual, but enjoying/ indulging prematurely is unwise, wrong, and often fraught. (cf ch 2 of book)
5. If you and your friend get keen on one another feel free to make it openly an exclusive faithful relationship, without commitment.
6 As this proceeds, make a rational evaluation of your prospects together long-term - in effect, a feasibility study. Socialise as 'an item'.
7. If, after a while, you decide that your future long-term is not together, break it off. You and your friends should see this as a positive step, not a failure. Move on.
8. Overall see the whole process as a progressive relaxed continuum from nothing to engagement, not as very few big and daunting steps.
9. Beware of reading too much into any conversation or invitation!
10. Relax and pray!
These all arise from chapter 3 of the book.

The following attempts to summarise the main points we aim to make in the book on these, and which are relevant to church leadership. In some cases much of the point of our writing is in the nuances and qualifications, which may be evident in the extensive footnotes consisting largely of relevant extracts from the book. (However, the footnotes total 1800 words, the first half of the book dealing with all this is over 40,000 words.)

The basic perspective
Human sexuality is wonderful and needs to be affirmed and enjoyed to a very full extent by unmarried young people. This requires a good deal of self control for Christians, who should delay its consummation until marriage, and operate within limits meanwhile in order to fully enjoy God's design within marraige later on.

A sexual aspect of enjoying others' company is proper, including arousal and excitement, even though it cannot be given free rein.² It's bizarre that Christians should sometimes be accused of being negative about sex (as distinct from particular about its proper context).

As already noted, for many teenagers, experiencing sexual intercourse is an integral part of adolescence, whereas for Christians it actually belongs as part of adulthood, along with responsibility for another person in marriage. That is a very basic difference, with our concept of sexual union being outside of the range of adolescent sex - from recreational to provisionally committed. This means that when we are talking about sex with young people we and they may really be talking about quite different things. In the eyes of the hedonistic young person, single Christians (especially in adolescence) will inevitably be seen as having a deprived and impoverished life. But in fact the social acceptance of adolescent sexual experimentation cuts right across the development which that stage of life is all about - adolescent brains are a work in progress, with great flux of values and of ability to make considered judgments.

The primary need is to establish what are appropriate limits to thought, in the sense of mental preoccupation. This is perhaps the greatest challenge for the individual and is not helpfully done in much Christian literature on relationships. We have approached this by attempting to define lust, making it clear that it is a pattern of thought which is illegitimate or at least very unhelpful for Christians.³ It does not include all sexually motivated thought, nor simply arousal. We recognize the real difficulty in any such definition, however.

We distinguish four broad categories of relationship involving sexual intercourse prior to marriage:

Casual sex outside of any faithful relationship, and where no enduring or exclusive relationship is intended,

Exploratory sex with a view to possibly starting a relationship,

Sex within a steady and faithful relationship but without long-term commitment,

Sex as part of cohabitation - short of a formal life commitment.

We note that the first - casual sex - is clearly contrary to any notion of its role that is arguable in Christian circles. It degrades the notion of enduring and ennobling union and there is plenty of biblical material to counter it. The second is in practice no different. The third, in a faithful relationship, is harder to relate unambiguously to biblical injunctions, since the intention is not transience and nor is it any more self-indulgent than possible within marriage. We comment on the biblical pointers at some length. The last, cohabitation, is arguably what marriage actually means and therefore we maintain that the commitment should be formal and permanent, not a test drive with an escape clause.

In this connection we question whether Matt 5:28 (about adultery in the heart and mind) applies as widely or strongly as sometimes represented. It can be read and taught as effectively stigmatizing much sexual enjoyment at a purely social level which is preliminary to rather than cutting across marriage relationships (its immediate context).

Early marriage is not necessarily or generally an appropriate answer to the challenge of managing our sexuality into the 20s. In the context of Paul's advice to the Corinthians for those bursting with sexual energy, hungering for intimacy of that kind and having a plausible partner, it may make sense. But it needs to be balanced sensibly with the person's social and vocational level of maturity, and Paul's exhortation to the Thessalonians that each should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable - while allowing all the other attributes which contribute to a successful marriage to develop.

So how does a young Christian actually manage and enjoy his or her sexuality pending that marital consummation? Or for some, longer term? The control and management of sexuality needs to be taught much more fully than it commonly is, and not simply as a set of rules. As one 23 year old guy put it: "remember it's not just about 'keeping your virginity' but about the place of all sexual expression, penetrative or not. Unless the special nature and uniqueness of all sexual expression is emphasised, young people simply won't see the point of resisting. Each Christian group or church must be active in encouraging, expounding and reaffirming these values of restraint and expectation of later fulfillment amongst its members, since they will receive precious little assistance outside it." And to what extent is masturbation appropriate or is that in fact a deficiency in self-control? This is inevitably a bigger issue for young Christians than for others and is addressed later.

Effectively denying one's sexuality and repressing every sexual thought is not a proper or wholesome way forward. There is a spectrum between repression of sexually-charged thought and mental indulgence of lust, and each person needs to work out where he or she should aim to be around the middle of it in the light of their own nature and conditioning. It is right and proper for our sexuality to be a significant feature of many kinds of relationships and bottling it up for years is not a healthy prelude to marriage. Romantic interest in the opposite sex then becomes intimidating because of a false notion of sexual purity. Self control is not the same as repression.

Christians do need to keep very much in mind that sex as given by a loving and bountiful Creator has both bringing-together and procreative aspects. A proper Christian view acknowledges both equally, even if procreation is deliberately delayed for some time after marriage, and then controlled. Sex is also sacramental.

Control and management of sexuality needs to be taught well in the churches so that sexually charged relationships may be enjoyed appropriately.

Encouraging sound personal standards
We acknowledge that many evangelical churches are not simply grappling with the negative vibes about sex as mentioned above, but also have a significant incidence of routine premarital sex and occasional pregnancies. We assume that the main reason for the first is deliberate sin and for the second is getting carried away without being prepared for it. However, we wonder whether there might not also be other reasons connected with inadequate teaching and modelling of wholesome sexual relationships.

Young people need help to define their boundaries while being socially active. They need to be aware of the likely consequences of not doing so (beyond the obvious) and of the opposite - being so "safe" that they avoid any sexually stimulating encounter.

Specific boundaries of physical behaviour are not appropriate to be laid down as law by a church or its elders or youth ministers, to be taught as applying across the board. Advice and guidance on boundaries needs to be related to the individual or sub group. The only clear boundary with scriptural authority is: no sexual intercourse outside of a marriage relationship.

Talking about boundaries applicable to private time together must not detract from the emphasis that durable relationships are best built with a major ingredient of public socialising and also shared ministry.⁴

Teaching and modelling social relationships
There needs to be a relaxed, open and progressive continuum of relationships in a church community all the way through to marriage. This requires a good deal of trust from church leadership and common sense. The model we often encounter is deficient in the early stages, creating a significant psychological hurdle to get into the system. It goes from almost nothing to something which can be akin to engagement in one leap.

At a social level, this awkward way male-female relationships are done is the biggest problem we see in churches, and we each have had numerous conversations arising from it or touching on it. It is a problem which desperately needs tackling, first by adequate and sound teaching as alluded to above, and secondly by very specifically encouraging a full range of social interaction of the kind we describe, and which in many ways is simply common sense. Younger people need to be able to see progression in this being worked out in the church community as a relaxed, exciting set of interactions which involve almost everybody at some level or other and issue in long-term relationships after earlier stages of flux. Also there must be no stigma attached to breaking off a romantic relationship. ⁵

The church situation often seems to be an overreaction to the secular norms of casual sex and of couples sleeping together because this is seen as basic for a relationship to be at all serious. However, there is plenty of scope for taking a firm line on promiscuity without clamping down unduly on sexually-charged interactions.

There is a school of thought that says one should not "date" or spend time socially with members of the opposite sex unless one is seriously and currently intent on finding a partner for marriage. That can be extreme and inappropriate we suggest. Prima facie we are all - in those early years - on a trajectory towards marriage, and the more socialising we do with a little bit of hormonal charge the more we will be able to know ourselves, understand others and gain a greater maturity in sexual relationships. This then puts us into a much better position to look around intelligently and make a more sensible choice of life partner when we are ready to do so. So the main thing early on in a relationship is for individuals simply to relax and enjoy one another over weeks and months while they check out and reflect upon the longer term possibilities.

It is just not good enough for the church to react to the promiscuity of many outside it by discouraging or even clamping down on social engagement with the opposite sex. There is a great need for each of us to learn to manage our sexuality without yielding to every urge but at the same time enjoying the special excitement it brings to relationships. Especially for those embarking upon adult life without having grown up with opposite-sex siblings of similar age, the church family has great potential to nurture this maturing. It needs to do so without people feeling that it's improper to enjoy one another unless the contact or date is part of a earnest game plan angled towards marriage as soon as possible. We need to encourage young adults and youth to lighten up and enjoy singleness!

We assert that the sexual buzz that one gets from encountering an attractive person is meant to drive us into social engagement with such persons. That engagement, starting along the continuum we have sketched, is appropriate, enjoyable and an essential part of growing each person's self control, social skills and basis of understanding which eventually equips individuals to decide upon suitable life partner. The sexual charge which drives it is God-given for precisely that purpose. Invoking Jesus' words about adultery in the mind just because a guy gets hot and hard in the process is ridiculous. Of course there are levels of indulgence in mental fantasy which should be firmly restrained, but not to the extent of avoiding such stimulation altogether. There is a wide area of wholesome social engagement with the opposite sex which is driven by the excitement of one's sexuality at a level between repressed self-neutering and unconstrained fantasy such as we have defined as lust (or more than that). We suggest that too many in the church react against the possibility of lust by effectively promoting the self-neutering and thus severely limiting the potential for healthy relationships to develop.

Consequently there arises a disconcerting social problem where some young people find that embarking upon romantic relationships with other Christians is daunting because of the entrenched hang-ups which arise from inadequate or simply weird teaching. Instead of relaxed interaction with clear acknowledgment of boundaries, there is awkwardness and uncertainty arising from particular teaching which puts a negative gloss on much of what we would consider healthy and normal in romantic relationships for Christians. This provides a strong incentive for romantic relationships to be pursued outside the church community.

There is a common situation where girls especially feel that their main romantic opportunities have passed so they fill (or pretend to fill) their diaries with all sorts of busy stuff, much of it social in some sense, but not retaining a clear sense of priority to allow for meaningful opportunities to interact with the opposite sex - occasions for potential romance. This may express a sense of denial or even be displacement activity, but at the level of our practical account it is plain silly.

A major practical help in discipleship, and particularly in the area of sexual relationships, is same-sex accountability partnerships.⁶

The perennial question of masturbation
It seems that the question of masturbation is generally not dealt with in the church at all well. This makes it all the more of a distraction to many young people, even into their 20s. In the book we try and put a little distance between it and sexual relationships, by dealing with it in The Body chapter.

The question looms larger for Christians than others for obvious reasons already discussed. It can be a serious cause of anxiety or eroded self confidence in Christian guys who are preoccupied with a particular notion of sexual purity which has negligible biblical basis. Since it is not proscribed by anything in the Bible we contend that masturbation is not particularly important in itself, and does not warrant undue attention, but must be talked about reasonably openly.

The Bible's teaching on self-control and what we allow to fill our minds and hearts is central to how we understand the matter.⁷ Pornography should be rigorously avoided. We wonder whether the reported widespread recourse to pornography by evangelical Christians is (if true) sometimes a reaction to negative church teaching and culture regarding sexuality.

We suggest that pastorally the church needs to avoid taking an unduly strong stand on any aspects of Christian behaviour that are not hugely significant, and pushing standards that do not allow for the full spectrum of young people, from the inert to the passionate high-hormone types. Church teaching which stigmatizes masturbation is likely to be profoundly unhelpful in encouraging a wholesome understanding of sexuality.

Making a big deal of masturbation, along with the other secondary matters mentioned, may mean that the church is self-selecting for wimps, or simply low-testosterone types - a rather serious form of self-abuse at the corporate level.

Conclusion
We have been encouraged to put forward these thoughts which arise from writing the first half of the book. We do so from the privileged position of detached critics, not having any responsibility to actually deal with all this in a real live church with a wide variety of people, personal issues and prejudices! Writing a book is relatively easy compared with that.

However, we hope and pray that the above points will provide a helpful alert on what we see as a social and sometimes spiritual tragedy within otherwise admirable evangelical churches, and also a stimulus to grapple with these issues better. We exhort church leadership to be bold rather than reticent in approaching the question, and suggest that it is best tackled in teenage years, with reinforcement of the social modeling of course continuing into the 20s.

We also hope that the book itself might be a useful resource in assisting this process. In due course, it may be in print. We invite comment via the feedback provision.

In mid 2009 we added discussion questions to each section, so that the book may be used as a resource in mentoring, with an agenda to some extent formed by the mentoree selecting sections to cover and discuss.

PS
We do not write only on these issues! For instance the book offers some strong encouragement to active hospitality, intercessory prayer and organized personal stewardship and it finishes by underlining the need for sound exegesis, explicit hermeneutics and a coherent epistemology. All of these too need much teaching and reinforcement in our churches!

Ian Hore-Lacy
Jon Horne
Will Jones

The Book's Table of Contents

Appendix to letter:

The Book Authors:
The book draws heavily on the views and insights of those in the front line of Christian living as active and involved young adults with pastoral involvements. Several people were involved collaboratively through much of the manuscript development, all of the younger ones being in the same age group as the intended readers, and (then) unmarried. The main two are listed here by way of acknowledgment.

Ian Hore-Lacy is in his late 60s, married with four grown-up progeny (2 sons, 2 daughters). He is engaged in some pastoral ministry and mentoring in Australia and UK out of which the main subject matter of this book arose. He has been a youth worker and intervarsity staffworker, then teacher and environmental scientist and now works in a public communications role based in London for the nuclear power industry. His most recent Christian book is Responsible Dominion, a Christian approach to sustainable development (Regent College Publishing 2006).

Will Jones is in his 20s and has been involved with church and university campus ministry at Coventry, UK. His honours degree in mathematics has led to PhD studies in philosophy and politics at Reading University after a transition year at Warwick University while finishing a part-time theology diploma at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

In addition, early in the formative process of the book, two others were actively involved:

Helen Barratt is in her 20s and a doctor in London. She also has a Masters degree in Bioethics and has been involved in student ministry both at Imperial College and All Souls church, London. She is married, and undertaking a four-year academic traineeship in public health medicine in London.

Jono Green is in early 20s, and joined the project to complement the others for a teenage readership. He has been engaged in schools ministry with Youth for Christ, was married late in 2009 and is now Australian co-ordinator of Youth Alpha.

These with others initially provided a reality check, but went on to do much more. They contributed a lot of substantial and solidly Christian input to the book over many discussions and in later drafting, so that Ian's and Will's role became mainly that of coordinating editor.

As co-author of this Open Letter to Churches, Jon Horne is Director of Agapé Workplace Initiative (London). He has two degrees in theology and a background in publishing and marketing. He has close involvement with All Souls church in London, and was married in September 2009.

¹ We acknowledge that in any church there will be the poor in spirit and socially incompetent people on a variety of parameters, including sexual relationships. Our concern here is with the chronic problems evident on a much wider front.

² In the Authors' Preface:
The section on relationships is longer than the others since this is an area of obvious and pertinent interest to those in their 20s, not least the co-authors and most of the commentators. It also reflects our concern that many churches and fellowships do not present a good model of this. Some teaching, even in "good" churches, is very inadequate. Christians don't always celebrate sex as fully as I think our creator (and its creator) would like (while non-Christians tend to devalue it by premature indulgence, as simply a bodily appetite).

In chapter 2 we make the points:

Sexuality is to be both enjoyed and controlled. Contrary to worldly assumptions, proper control and observing appropriate limits of behaviour arising from an acceptance of responsibility leads to fuller enjoyment.

For Christians the fact that sexuality is wonderfully exciting has the corollary of frustration while it is not yet able to be fully expressed or experienced.

Enjoyment of the hormonal buzz caused by attractive individuals is entirely proper, as is arousal and excitement on account of them if not given free rein. Sexuality adds a dimension to some relationships which stimulates our whole being. This is fraught with potential for the richest experiences of our lives, or the most debilitating ones.

For Christians sexual intercourse belongs as part of adulthood, along with responsibility for another person in marriage.

Within marriage, it is reciprocal self-giving, not simply mutual self-gratification.

Understanding it as part of marriage and not simply an aspect of adolescence or to be enjoyed at will is both biblically supported as conveying the Maker's intention and also in line with a thoughtful approach to what it all means.

This means we may really be talking about quite different things when sex is the topic.

In the eyes of the hedonistic young person, single Christians (especially in adolescence) will inevitably be seen by peers as having a deprived and impoverished life.

³ In 2.2:
How much should we restrain our enjoyment of sexuality as single people? And what is this lust that we should avoid? - as distinct from appropriately enjoying some excitement and sexual distraction due to thoughts and even fantasies? In the sermon on the mount (Matt 5:28), Jesus says that looking at a person (in text: married woman, wife) lustfully amounts to committing adultery in the heart, which would seem to define lust as doing in the head and heart what might be done in bed with someone who is not rightly available, consummating an illicit relationship. It is breaking a marriage bond. This is a lot more than admiring any person's beauty and sexual attractiveness and getting a buzz out of that! Jesus is not stigmatising natural sexual attraction. Nor is he saying that we shouldn't have wholesome sexual desire for members of the opposite sex who are potential partners. But if we allow ourselves to indulge in lust (v 29-30), then strong action and maybe drastic sacrifice is needed to remove ourselves from sexual temptation and the propensity to indulge it.

Other biblical references, and common sense, suggest that we should understand lust a little more widely than in this well-known sermon on the mount text, applying to adultery. A workable definition might be: Lust is a way of thinking about a person which objectifies their genital sexual aspect. It spawns a strong sexual urge or preoccupation focused on physical gratification, especially (for males) a self-indulgent desire to conquer or possess someone, however briefly, especially where that liaison is forbidden. Elaborating this: lust is distinct from love, which has a whole known person as object (not just their genital potential) and which essentially seeks their good; lust is largely physically-focused and self-indulgent, and the fierce desire to conquer or possess is the motivator, for males at least. Lust can even disregard the welfare and wellbeing of the object. It is the antithesis of seeing someone as being in the image of God, which leads to personal respect and different moral choices than lust. With any background of mental or physical indulgence it may be hard to restrain, so there is intense temptation to let it go unrestrained and to be driven by pursuit of pleasure.

Simply thinking sexual thoughts about someone is not necessarily lust, since that is how we are made. Nor does sexual arousal in the presence of an attractive person constitute lust. Wholesome sexual desire for members of the opposite sex is not wrong if it is under control. Avoiding having sexual attraction turning into lust is a matter of reasonable self-control. There is a whole spectrum of how we see members of the opposite sex, from psychological self-neutering through wholesome excitement to unbridled lust with its torrid fantasies. Each person needs to draw their own lines and boundaries between excitement and mild sexual arousal on the one hand and playing out genital fantasies in the mind on the other. We need to avoid the intense covetousness of lust with its powerful drive to mentally (and perhaps manually) indulge our fantasies, and decide where the brakes need to go on. Each of us is tempted differently and while male lust tends to be more blatant, males don't have a monopoly on it. With some practice of self-control, there can be an increasing distance between looking and lusting.

⁴ So where does one need to draw the line for each of us in thought and behaviour? It will differ a bit from person to person, but certainly best before indulgence in lust or undue physical intimacy which gives away what we may later wish had been kept for our life partner. In particular a person's self-esteem is easily degraded if they are persuaded to give away what they have in this respect prematurely. Further comment about boundaries is in chapter 3, section 3.5.

While a conservative approach is recommended, on the other hand drawing the line way back in the other direction so that we put up an emotional firewall may be "safe" but deprive one of the very proper pleasure of relationships between the sexes at a social level and the important learning from this. At the extreme it can amount to a denial of our sexuality and a sort of self-neutering repression leading to emotional and social disability. The main principle is that sexual faithfulness to one's future spouse starts in the first romantic relationship we have, and must guide and constrain our behaviour right through as we grow into and enjoy perhaps a number of romantic relationships.

And in 3.5:
Setting clear boundaries on physical intimacy together in the courtship continuum is essential. These boundaries are in order to preserve for marriage that sexual behaviour which is best experienced as a sacred and special activity between husband and wife. It thus follows that the boundaries are also to avoid behaviour which will lead to regrets after a relationship breaks up, because that intimacy has been broached and too much given away.

But the boundaries should not be set so tightly that a couple in an exclusive relationship without being committed to marriage cannot express their love and feelings physically, with some degree of tactile intimacy. This may be such that it is normally in private - the closed door (or not) is a factor in defining the boundary. A conservative boundary would be to avoid doing anything in private that you wouldn't be happy to be seen doing in public. A more common boundary is the waistline.

⁵ Some churches operate with two distinct categories: of friendship and dating, with a tightly-defined step change between them. This is possibly an attempt to regulate and restrain assumed youthful irresponsibility but often seems to us to place an inappropriate constraint on normal romantic interaction - especially when there is no short-term intention of marriage. It is also an outcome of a fear about possibly not continuing a particular relationship, where the subculture causes this to be seen as a failure rather than a sensible part of the flux in the early stages of getting to know members of the opposite sex who are attractive and prospective. Similarly, some churches go so far as to actively discourage male-female interaction or dating except in a group setting, until - after a suitable length of time - the couple make a decision to 'court', a relationship aimed at exploring the possibility of marriage. Again, there is a step change to this exclusive status which is not much short of engagement, in that breaking off is perceived as failure, and even imparting a stigma to those concerned.

We would prefer to see a more ordinary and normal situation, which is less intimidating but requires more trust and common sense. What might it look like? A gently progressive and exploratory continuum of social interaction and deliberate choices, with no-one ever out of reach of an outside invite to dinner/movies etc until an exclusive feasibility study stage is reached, a bit before an engagement might be announced. What we might call the courtship continuum progression runs something like:

deliberate interaction in a group context, along with arm's length discussion of relationships and how they are pursued and how they might develop, perhaps flirting, and certainly anticipating having a lot of fun in that group context.

making or accepting/declining individual invitations for coffee, dinner or shows, etc,

focusing attention on one person with repeat invites and hanging out together, which is starting to feel serious (probably more so for the girl), to

regular 1:1 contact with that particular person and some perception of an ongoing relationship, taking greater emotional risk with the person, to

very clear social recognition of a serious relationship (being "an item" together), increasing intimacy in sharing reflections on life experiences, and while open-minded to considering other possibilities, extraneous invitations are withheld/declined, to

serious and deliberate consideration of making this a permanent match, in which case it becomes

engagement (provisional and public commitment) leading towards

the permanent covenant commitment of marriage.

We have not numbered the eight dot points above because apart from the last two, they are not really discrete stages, each flows into the next, or doesn't, in which case each party backtracks to around the second or third level and pursues other possibilities. However, it will be evident that the second and third points are very much viewed from a male perspective and the female party may feel much more involved than the guy at that stage.

In actual experience, most relationships do unfold somewhat step-wise, but there is no particular place that applies across the board for those steps, however defined. The main point about commending the generalised continuum model is that it frees up the situation and opens opportunities, making it easier for anyone to engage with others without unrealistic expectations.

Some church contexts have younger single people being 'spiritual' and social on a group level, but with guys never venturing into fun and relaxed one-to-one relationships or even evenings out unless they have summoned up courage to embark directly upon a steady and exclusive 'dating' relationship. Learning and applying self-control is a major part of the exercise! Note that none of this is with immediate view to steady exclusive relationships in the short term, but simply getting to know others while learning to enjoy and control the sexual attraction. From there, the possibilities unfold. But it is fundamentally an experimental stage, within limits.

⁶ Sexual aspects of our lives are a prime area where we need to have an accountability relationship with a trusted friend and prayer partner (or two). In these we open ourselves very fully, unburdening regarding our lapses, and being open to interrogation regarding our points of vulnerability and potential or actual stupidity. More positively such a partner will then be able to give us powerful encouragement and support from a unique depth of understanding. This question is outlined more fully in chapter 1.

⁷ In 4.2:
Masturbation is perfectly normal and ordinary for most young single people, especially males, but it tends to be a vexed question and often a distraction for many Christian guys. Any young guy will masturbate, the issues in a Christian context are: how much control is exercised over the thoughts which give rise to it? And how much it is reined in as a matter of self control? It is certainly a larger issue for Christians in general than for most young people because it is their only legitimate genital activity through adolescence and onwards towards marriage. For conscientious Christians, sexual gratification by sleeping around or with particular girlfriends is not an option and scruples about sexual matters heighten this concern. In this context masturbating (to a climax) often becomes a serious cause of anxiety or eroded self confidence in Christian guys who are preoccupied with a notion of sexual purity which has negligible biblical basis beyond simply controlling lust.

Whatever we decide, our discipleship should be characterised by a clear conscience concerning all behaviour related to our sexuality. As outlined in section 2.5, flirting with pornography must be avoided, and Christians should avoid internet porn sites like the plague. Arguably, the bible's words about using prostitutes can be applied to accessing pornography - the self indulgence and exploitation of women are much the same. We underestimate the addictiveness of pornography at our peril. In teenage years it seriously derails the process of growing up emotionally. At any age it steadily erodes the ability to enjoy normal personal relationships in their sexual dimensions. Romance is displaced by voyeurism or lust. Once the attraction of porn is indulged, it can be a long way back.

Masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible, so we need to look for relevant indicators. There are at least four:

Teaching on sex and marriage. Becoming one flesh with a complementary person in an intimate life partner sexual relationship. So solo masturbation obviously isn't sex.

Teaching on lust or sexual fantasies which are in the mind and heart. These often go with masturbation, so we have an issue there.

Teaching on self-control as part of the fruit of the spirit. Masturbation can be a battleground in this respect, so that is an issue too.

Teaching on our bodies, and honouring God with them. While often invoked as a reason to avoid masturbation, we suggest this is not clear-cut (unless sex itself is seen as sub spiritual).

Since it is not proscribed by anything in the Bible we contend that masturbation is not particularly important in itself, and does not warrant undue attention. There is a spectrum between hypersensitive hang-ups and obsessive indulgence. The latter may be an outcome of habitual recourse to lust that has become an addiction. Both extremes are undesirable and best avoided. In between there are different Christian views which can be conscientiously held, though not with equal support and perhaps not equally applicable to male and female.

Compared with the consequences we have discussed above of promiscuous sexual activity, solo masturbation itself is relatively trivial, though not something unconnected or to be ignored. The thoughts which often lead to it are very much more significant. In moderation, and without the boost from pornography or unconstrained lust, masturbation should be seen as a God-given tool for sexual management which is useful for some unmarried people, not necessarily all.