Poll Shows 80% Of Unmarried Evangelicals (18 To 29) Are Sexually Active

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it has to do with severe lack of sexual education. ... As much as a parent rants and raves about the evils of state funded sexual education it is my opinion that those same parents do little or nothing beyond "God said don't have sex, so don't have sex" by way of educating their children.

The Church has published a very good manual to help parents do just that. It is called "A Parent's Guide." It has been criticized on this very thread for a statement that the critics took out of context.

[mfbukowski]

Someone suggested I comment (I thought this thread had been closed!), so I will. I am an evangelical Protestant with considerable first-hand experience working with people in a variety of denominational settings, in addition to the reading and research I have done on evangelicalism.

First, as an evangelical and an American I'm quick to acknowledge that there are all sorts of problems in American evangelicalism. I have no interest in sweeping anything under the rug.

Several of the posts here have already raised some of the questions and qualifications I would suggest. I'd want to know more precisely what the respondents meant, if they were commenting on whether they had ever been sexually active or rather were sexually active over a long period of time, and so forth.

The issue of sexual activity among young people generally, including but not limited to evangelicals, is a symptom of other things. Fifty years of popular culture and government-run educational institutions doing everything they can to tear down traditional morality has obviously done serious damage everywhere. Sexual images, music, texts, etc., are pervasive and for the past decade or so have been almost unavoidable for those plugged into the virtual world online. Biologically, children are reaching puberty earlier, while sociologically they are finishing school and getting married later. It wasn’t nearly as hard for young people to stay chaste while single when their bodies became sexually functional at 13 and they were getting married at 16 or 17 (and even then chastity wasn't close to being universal). Now girls’ bodies are often sexually functional at 11 and men and women commonly aren’t marrying until they are 25 or 30, if at all. Even “average-looking” young women today are typically far more attractive to males than their counterparts 150 years ago because the girls aren’t engaged in hard physical labor on the farm or in factories for hours each day, are better fed, better (and often more seductively) dressed, are better groomed, etc. This is significant because the reality is that those of us who are male are visually oriented when it comes to females. I’m sure these are just some of the factors involved in the apparent dramatic rise of sexual activity among young people. We might be justified in viewing those who remain chaste as extremely admirable in such a culture and having some empathy with those who falter in this regard.

I agree that certain subtypes of evangelical doctrine have at the very least made it easier for those raised in that perspective to take a lax approach to issues of morality—not just sexual morality but all matters of personal morality. One such subtype is a particular strain of older, so-called classic dispensationalism that teaches “once saved, always saved” and that “faith alone saves” in such a way that the impression is indeed given that a person might be saved and yet live a sinful lifestyle no different from non-Christians. Please note all of the qualifications: not all dispensationalists, and not even all advocates of the older, classic dispensationalism, should be tarred with this particular criticism. It is a particular strain—one that admittedly has had lots of adherents—that articulates dispensational soteriology (doctrine of salvation) in a very troubling way. Faith gets defined essentially as simple intellectual agreement, and getting saved is defined more or less as making a “decision” at some point in your life to “accept Christ.” These are all good words and phrases, but the way they are put together leads to the conclusion that if at any point in your life you “went forward” to make that decision, and you prayed “the sinner’s prayer” and were sincere (i.e., you really did agree mentally with it), then you are forever saved, regardless of what happens afterward. It is not necessary to continue believing, even, the way this view is sometimes articulated. Obviously, this particular slant on the evangelical gospel opens the door to licentiousness. With all that, I must say that my impression is that most of the Christians who hold this view don’t live in a licentious manner. Their life is usually better than their doctrine might suggest. But I cannot deny that the doctrine likely has contributed to moral laxity.

The historic soteriology of Reformation theology (historic Protestant evangelicalism) is quite different. It views faith not merely as mental assent but as an integration of mental assent, volitional dependence, and personal trust. Someone who thinks of faith in this more robust sense does not make the mistake of thinking that merely agreeing with the doctrine is enough to be saved. Arminian evangelicals and conservative Lutherans reject “once saved, always saved,” so they obviously will not think that their past “decision” in favor of Christ is valid if they walk away from Christ or fail ever to follow him. Calvinists affirm “perseverance of the saints,” which many people confuse with the dispensational “once saved, always saved”; the Calvinist doctrine maintains that those who are truly born again will persevere in faith until the end of their lives. Anyone who abandons the Christian faith or fails to live by it demonstrates, according to this view, that he is not truly both again. So these various forms of more traditional, historic evangelical theology do not teach “easy-believism” or set up their advocates to think that how they live morally is irrelevant to their Christian profession. All of these evangelicals insist that how a person lives is a sign or indicator of whether his or her profession is genuine.

Finally, I should point out that survey after survey shows that many people who self-identify as evangelicals or as born-again Christians often do not have an evangelical theology (even a defective one) or worldview. This is especially true of young people from evangelical backgrounds. Typically they are confused or misled on such fundamental, foundational issues as whether there are moral absolutes. Hence one finds apparently conflicting data in which young evangelicals often deny the existence of moral absolutes yet confidently assert that adultery is immoral. Young evangelicals, like young people generally in our culture, are reticent to “judge” certain behaviors such as same-sex unions, even if they agree that the Bible teaches such behaviors to be sin. In addition to some poor theology in some quarters, American evangelicalism has been infected with postmodernist-style relativism, which depreciates sound doctrine and clear moral boundaries. Those of us who are committed to sound evangelical faith are on the frontlines trying to combat this watering-down influence.

One other factor worth mentioning is that among the tens of millions of people who self-identify as evangelicals in America there is the full spectrum of varying degrees of commitment to the teachings and standards of evangelicalism. All other things being equal, the larger the religion the more nominalism is a problem (as is evident in Catholicism). One should consider the likelihood that laxness in sexual morals will be higher among those whose general commitment level is low.

The bottom line as I see it is that the problem is not the historic Protestant, evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone. That doctrine is perverted or corrupted in some segments of evangelicalism, especially in America, but the doctrine itself is not the problem. That having been said, evangelicalism is far from perfect and does have its share of weaknesses, hypocrisies, scandals, and problems.

(Edited to add second to last paragraph.)

In all honesty, I have to compliment you on a vary fair and honest post. The moral standards of youth in America in general are eroding rapidly and it should be a concern for all believers.

Should there be such a survey among youth identified as "LDS" I am sure none of us would be happy with the results either.

[mbh26]

Once again we see the results of delaying marriage.

That's exactly right.

It's not just the boys who are delaying growing up.

Had the Church leadership at BYU been as honest in this point as you have, I may have not become so disenchanted with the Church right after my mission. How old are you Lehi? I thought there was a generation gap between us, but it sure appears to me that this post you've given is right on the money.

No woman is competent to raise a child unless she is paid to do so—that seems to be the gist of today's world.

Again, exactly right.

Best post ever Lehi. Thanks for speaking up.

[california boy]

The church has outlined a clear path for all young men to follow if they wish to delay marriage. Since being gay is just a choice, is all the young man has to do is wake up one morning and "choose" to be gay. The church will forbid him from marrying and still encourage him to date young women. The ward he belongs to will embrace him with loving arms. He will be called to meaningful callings in the church to serve. And the church can point to him as an example of their unconditional love for gays.

When the woman he is dating starts to pressure him into getting married, is all he has to say is "I choose to be gay and the church counsels me against marrying... or I would." When he does find that special person in his life and he is ready to get married, then is all he has to do is "pray the gay away" choose to become straight and marry the woman he loves. Heck, he can ever write a book about his wrong life choices that has now has turned around. He will probably be asked to speak at the Especially for Youth conferences about how he has turned his life around. And the beauty of it all is there is no deception involved since being gay is just a choice he made for a couple of years in his life.

[Skylla]

The church has outlined a clear path for all young men to follow if they wish to delay marriage. Since being gay is just a choice, is all the young man has to do is wake up one morning and "choose" to be gay. The church will forbid him from marrying and still encourage him to date young women. The ward he belongs to will embrace him with loving arms. He will be called to meaningful callings in the church to serve. And the church can point to him as an example of their unconditional love for gays.

When the woman he is dating starts to pressure him into getting married, is all he has to say is "I choose to be gay and the church counsels me against marrying... or I would." When he does find that special person in his life and he is ready to get married, then is all he has to do is "pray the gay away" choose to become straight and marry the woman he loves. Heck, he can ever write a book about his wrong life choices that has now has turned around. He will probably be asked to speak at the Especially for Youth conferences about how he has turned his life around. And the beauty of it all is there is no deception involved since being gay is just a choice he made for a couple of years in his life.

This thread isn't about homosexuality. Stop derailing it.

Skylla

[CQUIRK]

What irony?

The fact that we get bashed and smeared so much by EV's on whether we are Christian or not (to name one hot topic)- when it actually seems, based on this article, that many EV's have bigger problems with moral and physical vices then we do, since plenty of statistics show that we do better in abstaining from sex before marriage, doing drugs, and many other vices when compared to evangelicals.

I'm not trying to bash EV's here, but seriously, while not all Latter Day Saints live up to the principles taught in the gospel (even I've had my moments too), yet the majority of us do, percentage-wise.

[CQUIRK]

I'm sure many members of the Church aren't much better.

From personal experience and the stats, it depends on the area and the 'social politics' of the culture in that area.

For example, in most areas where LDS are the minority, the majority of members adhere to the gospel and the standards and in some cases even have 100% attendance rates in their wards.

Yet in areas where the Church is the majority (like in Utah), it may be the other way around, since LDS would be in the majority, then there would be more diversity of opinions and attitudes among the flock, and hence, there would be a higher percentage of the jack-Mormon crowd and those that wear the faith on their sleeves.

However, this isn't usual because its the same situation with the Catholic Church, protestants, etc. For an example, the statistics in the ultra-Catholic countries like Spain or Italy have shown attendance rates for Mass to be very low, and many Catholics there only consider themselves Catholic only by heritage, and not attendance or adherence.

I believe that in areas where one particular faith is the majority, and doesn't have issues with serious persecution in that area- then there will be those of that dominant faith in that area that are so accustomed to it, whether by birth or by living in the area for a long period of time, that they may take it for granted.

In conclusion, the matter is a sociological one that relates to every church or denomination, and not just to our faith in particular.

[CQUIRK]

the whole sex and the Church thing...so many of my friends have done something they felt was wrong and have just walked away and a few others have been disciplined and also have walked away and one said to me that they feel like they are being punished for something that is totally normal-having a sex drive-not whatever they did. Plus it is easy for a married Bishop or whoever to say "don't do xyz" to an unmarried single all the while they can go home and do it and never have to live with their own advice

Dude, you should remember that our church leaders are not infallible; there will be Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. that will make poor decisions and/or even abuse their position as a church leader; it does happen from time to time.

However, we have checks and balances in the leadership, and such individuals will end up either having a serious talking to with the church leadership, or end up disciplined if you, or someone stands up and reports it to a Stake President, or an Area Authority, or if necessary, to SLC.

If none of that works, then just be patient, and karma will kick their butts in due time.

After all, we're still human.

[CQUIRK]

Since I'm known for giving Rob a hard time I'd like to echo a couple of his well thought out statements here...

First: self-identifying members of a religion do not always indicate active members that are adhering to practices of a religion. There are plenty of Mormons in the inter-mountain West that are social or family Mormons but not actively practicing the religion. This is also true of Christians in the Bible Belt. It is difficult to get good statistics on groups broken down by strict vs. casual adherence.

These types of surveys are notoriously sloppy. I remember the surveys in college that measured which schools were the biggest "party" colleges. In my pre-LDS days we routinely filled out reams of the response sheets with the most debauched and wild answers we could think of for fun. (I know- not honest - but what does a researcher expect by placing a stack of paper questionnaires in a college bar?). In my post LDS days I didn't go to college bars. ;-)

Given these statistics are probably very general and not terribly valid, it is still cause for worry. Evangelicals should not be the only one's worrying. I seriously doubt "cheap grace" or "easy believism" are the root cause of sexual impurity among the religious. No sane Christian I know says "I'll sin tonight and repent in the morning". Looking back into the fog of adolescence (a painful exercise for certain) I seem to remember the real struggle between what my body wanted to do and what my mind knew better. Even as a protestant it was the times I neglected to bring God into the discussion that got me into trouble. I knew better than to ask forgiveness for something I really wasn't sorry or repentant for.

I suspect a confidential survey of LDS youth would find levels of sexual activity most LDS parents would find shocking. We teach and practice chastity, but we also teach and practice repentance for good reason. Sexual desires are strong when couples start feeling close to each other. While I don't think the majority of Evangelical-Christian or LDS-Christian youth easily justify sin, they are still subject to temptation and weakness.

All of the reasons cited above (older marriage ages, sexualized media and culture, etc.) just add to the pressures and challenges our youth face when trying to live Christlike and chaste lives. I have seen it with my own children and often weep at the challenges they share with me. It is much harder for them to find safety than it was for us a generation ago. This isn't an excuse for sin, but it is a reason to be more vigilant and supportive.

As elders or "adults" in our respective religions I think it is up to us to continue to set high expectations, Biblical expectations... at the same time it is up to us to encourage repentance and recovery from mistakes emphasizing the healing power of the atonement. If we treat sexual sins as though they are unrecoverable or reason to shun the sinner we risk scaring our youth away from the very power of Christ that can help them return to the straight and narrow path.

Yeah, you said it better then I did.

[california boy]

This thread isn't about homosexuality. Stop derailing it. Skylla

What you didn't like my solution to the pressure young men get for not getting married? I think it is a totally reasonable choice to make. This thread might not be about homosexuality, but it is about the choices the church thinks a young man can make and stay within the boundaries of what the church expects.

I get the feeling you just don't like my response and have nothing to say about it. i can understand your dilemma. So I will leave it at that.

Edited December 18, 2011 by california boy

[Stargazer]

What you didn't like my solution to the pressure young men get for not getting married? I think it is a totally reasonable choice to make. This thread might not be about homosexuality, but it is about the choices the church thinks a young man can make and stay within the boundaries of what the church expects.

I get the feeling you just don't like my response and have nothing to say about it. i can understand your dilemma. So I will leave it at that.

Just checking: did you happen to notice that Skylla is a MOD, not someone who simply disagrees with you? And has nothing to say about it because Mods don't contribute to threads, except to try to keep us all within the bounds the board has set? Not to board-nanny, but I think you might have missed something there, and I'm pointing it out, in case it applies.

[Duncan]

Dude, you should remember that our church leaders are not infallible; there will be Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. that will make poor decisions and/or even abuse their position as a church leader; it does happen from time to time.

However, we have checks and balances in the leadership, and such individuals will end up either having a serious talking to with the church leadership, or end up disciplined if you, or someone stands up and reports it to a Stake President, or an Area Authority, or if necessary, to SLC.

If none of that works, then just be patient, and karma will kick their butts in due time.

After all, we're still human.

I know that! In my area members of the Church are in the minority and because so they either move or drift off in high numbers because most of their friends are non members or there are more members elsewhere. For example in YM group of 7 only 2 are active now and one other one who is totally inactive served a mission

[Rob Bowman]

Thank you.

In all honesty, I have to compliment you on a vary fair and honest post.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you.

Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, I have nothing against you personally, and wish you and yours well, especially in this Christmas season. I especially hope your daughter is doing well. I know you are doing what you think is right; our major disagreement is indeed about what IS right, and each of us will fight for that.

So in many ways we are very similar.

But don't let that make you think I am going soft on you or anything like that.

[katherine the great]

How the heck did that ridiculous statement make it into a manual? That's not that long ago.

Yeah. At first glance it seems like a ludicrous statement. It is very poorly worded. If you read further though, he really isn't saying that the sex drive is a myth. He is saying that the uncontrollable sex drive is a myth. I agree with that statement. We have agency over our behavior, and we can choose to abstain from sexual expression if we really try. I don't think they should take it out, but should reword it to be in line with what the author really is saying as he elaborates.