One of the reasons given for sex education in the Church is so that we might share perspective on “God’s gift of sex” and “sexuality”.
Let’s discern the language. Does God speak about his “gift of sex” or “sexuality” in Scripture or is this phrase coming from another source?
The words we use matter. When we speak about “God’s gift of sexuality,” we turn eyes toward the created; but when we speak about God’s design for sexuality, we turn eyes toward the Creator. God’s design for sexuality is within the boundaries of one man/one woman marriage, but His design for mature womanhood and manhood is not bound by marriage and, therefore, does not have to be sensually driven.
One of the failures of sex education in the Church becomes evident once we acknowledge the foundation upon which it was built. Sex education was intended to make children who are “sexual from birth” understand how central their “sexuality” is to their humanity and to express that sexuality in ways different from their parents. It was important to both secular humanists and feminists that boys and girls see themselves not compatibly different as male and female, but the same as uninhibited “sexual beings.” Denying God’s design and created order is doomed to failure and there are many casualties. When the Church brought in the language of social scientists, the faithfulness of instructing in biblical manhood and womanhood was set aside. Many girls and women I talk with are comfortable with their “sexual identity” but uncomfortable with being a woman. Boys and men in my relational circle are bombarded by a feminized and sexualized culture but don’t know how to engage as mature men.
So what is mature manhood and womanhood?
The answer is found in the next post.
From The Failure of Sex Education in the Church:
Mistaken Identity, Compromised Purity (pp 99-100)
by Linda Bartlett (Amazon)