Sociologists not the answer for our kids

An example is the recent report on sexually transmitted diseases among young adults. The report says teenagers who take pledges to remain sexually pure until marriage have a similar rate of STDs as those who don’t. Perhaps, it is thought, pledgers are slightly less likely to have multiple partners but much less likely to use a condom. We would not ask our children to pledge purity and then make allowance for failure. For that reason, Peter Bearman, a sociologist from Columbia University, considers moralists to be meddlers in this public health issue. “These two movements, the pledge and abstinence-only education,” he said, “both are essentially ideological movements that are designed to block access to knowledge that might be helpful for adolescents wishing to protect themselves.” Now that our failure (and malice?) is evident, Dr. Bearman hopes that health care professionals can take the lead.

The good doctor is concerned that churches, Christian parents and, other pesky amateurs will tell our kids to “just say no” and then send them out into the world without adequate preparation for inevitable failure. He claims, “These movements that are ignorant of social science research defeat the purpose they set out to solve.”

Dr. Bearman is right about one thing; signing a card pledging sexual purity is inadequate preparation for the libertine world our kids face each day. The problem with his point is that we never claimed it was adequate. Richard Ross, spokesman for the Southern Baptist “True Love Waits” movement, objects that a pledge to purity was never intended to the be the whole thing. Involved, loving parents and a vital church community are the secret to making TLW work. Where kids have this support, they are much more likely to succeed in keeping their commitment to purity.

Drs. Ross and Bearman are actually working on two different problems from mutually-exclusive perspectives. Richard Ross considers sexual purity a matter of character. STDs or unmarried pregnancy are symptoms, not simply social problems. Peter Bearman apparently discounts the moral aspect of human relationships. Thus, if health-related consequences can be prevented or cured, things are fine. From one view, character has value and consequences?regardless of its physical manifestations.PAN> From the more materialistic view, physical and measurable circumstances are the whole thing. We are fortunate that both views of truth have had time to prove their worth.

A final quote from Dr. Bearman illustrates two different ways we approach pre-marital sexual conduct. He says, “The obvious dynamic is that kids who are pledging are much less likely to have an understanding about how to have a healthy, sexual relationship.”

We are so very far apart. Does he mean a sexual relationship that is healthy because it is free of selfishness, loneliness, and guilt?or one free from commitment, inconvenience, and meaning? I think I know.

We have seen the outcomes of both kinds of relationships as well as an emerging monster that is neither. Children brought up in stable families and loving spiritual communities grow up understanding from observation that what we call traditional is often sensible and fulfilling?actually more fun than the glitzy wrapping of license.

In the last 40 years we have also seen a moral philosophy that values the new for newness’ sake. It rejects traditional models as repressive. During this time, divorce rates have exploded. Sexual diseases spread rapidly in a libertine youth culture. Children without married parents became the norm in some communities. Cohabitation is now considered mainstream for those who want to play at commitment. An entire generation has been ravaged by abortions of greed and convenience. Adultery is considered humorous and manly in some quarters ? and our children have learned what the academics and the TV characters, the music celebrities and political leaders, the careerist religious leaders and absentee dads and self-absorbed moms have taught. We’ve tried the new thing and it has been a bit of Hell for millions and death for millions more.

The monster is a culturally-driven, weak Christian family that believes what’s right but does what’s easy, and lives with a lot of guilt. It is the church that replaces biblical teaching with sermonic therapy and discipleship with life skills training. These essential institutions often try to be what they cannot be: neutral and tepid?a little of this and a little of that. And our children have learned what we’ve taught.

In this context, we are tempted to listen to those who view people as mechanisms or beasts. Dr. Bearman and his colleagues are at least taking a stand. It’s a wrong stand but their confidence is compelling to some. Ours can be also.

What we know of righteous relationships has been revealed by God and proven over the course of generations. We need not consider destructive sexual relationships inevitable because we know they are not. Knowing the word of God and the empowerment of the Spirit, we can model and teach righteousness to our children without shame. Our God is not “ignorant of social science research.”

We must not abandon our children to the earnest though wrong-headed mercies of social experimentation. Social experiments brought us to this desperate point in the first place. Their prophets are blind guides who cannot lead us anyplace we want to be.