Sex Before Marriage
The purpose of one-to-one relationships for the Christian, as we saw in chapter three, is not primarily to provide partners with a series of sex jaunts but rather to promote the emotional and spiritual growth of both people. Such partnerships, sandwiched as they are between the intimacy once provided by parental love and the intimacy of the hoped-for marriage relationship, are gap fillers. Such gap fillers can be valuable. If each partner provides the other with the sympathetic care every young person needs during the maturing years, if the essential ingredients of tenderness, understanding and solidarity with the peculiar pains of the growing years are present, the relationship could be one of those rich friendships for which we thank God, which we look back on and recognize that, within the love of God, have made us real.
By real, I mean genuine, less afraid to remove the masks behind which most of us hide, authentic, Christ-like. But, as the velveteen rabbit in Margery Williams' touching children's story reminds us, such 'realness' takes a very long time to mature:
'What is REAL?' asked the Rabbit one day when he and his close friend the Skin Horse were lying side by side near the nursery fender. 'Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?'
'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with you, but REALLY loves
you, then you become Real.'...
'Does it happen all at once, like being wound up.. or bit by bit?'
'It doesn't happen all at once,' said the Skin Horse. 'You become. It takes a long time.... Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand.'1
If you want to discover how the Rabbit became real you have to read the book for yourself. And it's well worth buying because the Skin Horse is very wise and extremely accurate. Real is not how we were first made. It implies growth and maturing. We become real through the patience of those who love us. And most young people, even those who are not Christians, admit that in close one-to-one relationships, what they most want is this depth of understanding, this caring from someone else, which will give them permission to be real with at least one other person in this brash and uncertain world.
But herein lies a problem. These one-to-one relationships, as I have said, bridge the gulf between parent-child intimacy and the intimacies of marriage. But in parent-child loving, cuddling, kissing, and caressing are all natural, necessary and right. Similarly, in the marital relationship, the intimacies of touch lie at the core of the friendship. They are an essential and integral part of the relationship. And the desire to express love by touching does not evaporate during the in-between years. It accelerates. So what are young couples supposed to do with the touch bomb? How do they resolve the petting problem?
This is the subject which we must now bring to the forefront of our minds. In the next two chapters, then, we shall be handling such hot potatoes as these: 'Is it all right for two people who really love each other to sleep together? If not, where should we draw the petting line? Isn't the Bible's teaching rather out-moded and unreasonable, even unrealistic?
Doesn't it turn the so-called God of love into a spoil-sport? How on earth do you cool the sex urge? And what happens if you fail?'
Many sincere Bible-behaving Christians clamour for an answer to questions like these, like the girl who wrote to me on one occasion:
'I am 18 and became a Christian six months ago. I have being going out with my boyfriend for over a year now and we make love together. I've never really thought about it being wrong or right until just recently and it's causing me a lot of problems.
'On one side I've got parents who forbid it. On the other side I've got friends who think it's perfectly acceptable. Then I've got God telling us it's wrong, and I really don't understand why it's wrong. Of course, I understand why it's wrong for some people but my boyfriend and I have such a great relationship. It's very hard for my boyfriend suddenly to hear from me that we no longer can have that side of a relationship. Surely there's room in the Christian faith to make your own decisions about things? Anyway, I find I'm rebelling against God because I just don't understand some of the Christian principles. It's important for me to be clear about my faith. I would be so grateful if you could write back to me.'
I admired that girl for writing as she did. I know that it was costly to do so. I want to use her letter as a basis for discussion.
The first thing to understand is that God is not a sugar-daddy giving his children everything they want exactly when they want it. Nor is he a spoil-sport, sitting in the heavenly places, waiting for the precise moment when we are about to enjoy ourselves and choosing that moment to thunder an almighty 'Don't' from heaven. No. God is love. Love: selflessness, goodness, the desire to give us only the best, is what God is. Love is the essence of his being.
Even so there are Christians who nurse the dread that God is a killjoy. When they seek for guidance about anything they
think of the thing they least want to do and decide that that must be God's will. This killjoy God is a figment of men's imagination, born of neurosis and bad teaching. He is not the God of the Bible. Similarly, the spoil-sport God is the picture of God painted for us by Satan way back in Genesis 3, a picture which will be finally phased out now if we would focus on the Jesus of the Gospels. But, of course, Satan redirects our attention from Jesus to Satan's lies. So a paraphrase of Genesis 3:1 and Genesis 3:4 for the purposes of our study, might read rather like this: 'What a terrible, selfish God, God is. Has he told you to avoid pre-marital genital intercourse? Fancy! What a wet blanket he is. Has he told you this will soil your soul or harm you? What nonsense! Far from being harmed, you will become an adult. By losing your virginity you will become a skilled lover, a VIP.'
This subtle, lying, persuasive whisper sounds so much more attractive to the young Christian than swimming against a sex-crazy tide, that too often they swallow the lie, behave promiscuously and then rail at God because this behaviour cuts them off from him.
Sex and the media
The media reinforce this lie. A certain newspaper once published a series of articles which made these claims: 'These days there's nothing wrong if a girl wants to go to bed with a guy'; 'I'm a BIG girl now I'm going to stop worrying about what my mother told me and enjoy this wonderful moment' (of sexual promiscuity). The same newspaper published articles by mothers advising their teenagers to sleep around.
Or I think of the film Endless Love, the story of the sexual awakening of a seventeen-year-old boy and a sixteen-year-old girl; of their total obsession with each other. The director said of the controversy surrounding that film: 'I'm not encouraging fifteen-year-olds to make love. They do that anyway. I'm just telling them it's quite normal.'
Or, again, I think of a recently published book aimed to bring twelve-to-sixteen-year-olds into an awareness of their sexual responsibilities. The author records the reactions of certain teenagers in this age-bracket to the loss of their
virginity. 'The loss of virginity has an enormous effect on boys and girls ... Boys have mainly positive feelings. You feel that you have matured, you're proud of yourself and feel a sense of accomplishment. You feel like a man and it's something to boast about. You feel you've conquered something, and are relieved that you can finally tell the truth if someone asks you if you're still a virgin.
'Girls too have positive feelings. You're a woman. You feel fully-fledged and confident. You feel relief that you've crossed a hurdle and will now be accepted by your friends as grown up.... You've joined the adult world. You're a VIP!.'2
My heart bled as I copied out that quotation. What Satan hides, and what the author of this book fails to point out, is the underlying reason for these so-called 'positive' feelings: that this is pandering to the conformist in us all. I described in an earlier chapter that this is yielding to group pressure, that such bragging about sexual conquests is the price you pay for acceptance in certain teenager and young adult circles. What remains concealed is the fact that these positive feelings are often transient: they turn to the lasting guilt we shall examine later, they become the skeletons in the cupboard whose presence haunts us unbearably. What remains concealed is the fact that sexual intimacies, forced, indeed inflicted is not too strong a word, on girls in their teens leave behind a trail of scarred memories, a fear of sex within marriage, a distaste, even disgust, for one of God's most precious gifts. What remains concealed is that this is not God's superlative gift of genital fusion but a tawdry substitute, sex trivialized.
As we shall go on to observe, God wants to preserve us from this sick substitute for sex. God would protect us from the confusion and the pain and the unhealed, tormenting memories. He says what he says because Love is what he is and love wants to protect the loved one from unnecessary hurt. God is no spoil-sport. Through-and-through Love is what he is.
God and sex
So what does God say about sex? As we saw in chapter two,
our God is pro-sex. You will find nothing negative in the Bible about the act of sexual intercourse itself. As we have already observed, the language used to describe the sex act is extravagant and celebratory. The mysterious oneness produced when two people become physically one is described, not with the slushy sentimentality of the pop song, not with the all-too-inadequate metaphor of the poem or the ballad, but with the most superlative imagery man could conceive of. Paul likens this act of love to the relationship Jesus has with his Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32) which, in turn, is likened to the relationship which has always existed between God the Father and God the Son (John 15:9). Not only that, Paul implies that this is a two-way picture. Sexual union is like this God-Bride relationship and the God-Bride relationship may best be thought of with this physical fusion in mind. You cannot have a higher view, or a purer picture of genital bodily fusion, than that.
No. The Bible is never anti-sex. What the Bible does insist on is sexual intercourse in the relationship for which it was designed: marriage. The Bible knows of only one context for genital fusion and that is the marriage relationship. Even couples who were betrothed to each other the betrothal was a relationship far more binding than engagement is in the West today were not permitted to complete their bodily union until after the marriage ceremony had taken place. That is one reason why Joseph was so embarrassed when he discovered Mary's pregnancy. That is one reason why he planned to divorce her secretly.
We shall go on to explore the vexed question 'Why?: Why restrict something so enriching to one relationship in life?' First, let me underlined the Bible's prohibition on extramarital genital activity.
Adultery, promiscuity, lust, homosexuality
The Bible uses four words to describe extra-marital genital intercourse: adultery, promiscuity, lust and homosexuality. We shall look at homosexuality in a later chapter. Here, we look at the other three in turn.
By adultery the Bible means sexual intercourse between a
married person and someone to whom that person is not married. Of adultery, the Bible has this to say:
Exodus 20:14 'You shall not commit adultery'
Deuteronomy 5:18 'You shall not commit adultery'
Matthew 19:18 'You shall not commit adultery'
Romans 13: 9 'You shall not commit adultery'
The message could not be clearer if it was flashed on our bedroom wall in fluorescent lighting. Do not indulge in sexual intercourse with a person who is married to someone else.
The biblical writers are equally agreed about casual sex. Modern translators use the term sexual immorality to translate the word found in the older texts, 'fornication'. Fornication means genital intercourse with someone to whom you are not married. The Bible insists that this kind of behaviour is not permissible for one who calls himself a Christian:
1 Corinthians 6:13 'The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord'
1 Corinthians 6:18 'Flee from sexual immorality'
Colossians 3:5 'Put to death ... sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires...'
1 Thessalonians 4:3 'Avoid sexual immorality'
Look up the word 'fornication' in a concordance and complete the list for yourself. I have selected just a few references, enough to show that the New Testament writers are as persuaded as the writer of Genesis seems to be that it is better to lose your coat, your job and your liberty than to lose your virginity (see Genesis 39:12).
Jesus, as always, goes further and deeper. He challenged his followers not simply to set a watch over their behaviour with the opposite sex but to be far more radical. He threw out a startling challenge: Watch your thought-life; the nerve-center
for trouble-shooting operations lies there. As Jesus himself expressed it, ' "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" ' (Matthew 5:28). Peter reiterates this command of Jesus: 'Do not give in to bodily passions, which are always at war against the soul' (1 Peter 2:11 GNB). Timothy, likewise, warns us to 'Avoid the passions of youth' (2 Timothy 2:22). As I underlined in chapter two, these verses are not saying, 'Repress your glandular urges'. They are saying, 'Channel them so that they are put to appropriate use, not to destructive use.' To lust means to dwell on the desire for someone's body, to feed on that desire, to give in to inappropriate desires by stealing what is not yours to take. Lust always contains an element of greed and grabbing for the purposes of self-gratification. And Jesus says of this activity, 'Don't!'
This command of Jesus is not easy to obey. If we are to succeed in obeying him, therefore, we must choose carefully the kind of places we visit, the kind of activities we indulge in and the kind of people we allow to influence us.
Why play the waiting game?
If everything we have said so far is true: that God is not the divine spoil-sport; that sex of itself is good; that God's context for sex is marriage, there must be a missing link. We must now try to find it by asking an important question: Why is the context for sexual intercourse marriage and marriage only?
From a vast variety of reasons, I propose to consider two.
First, we must ask ourselves what genital intercourse really is. For too long the myth has been spread abroad that sexual intercourse means simply release of tension, ejaculation of sperm, the contentment of the orgasmic experience. Sexual intercourse does include all this but so much more. Far from being an animalized act, it is also a language capable of conveying profound messages, albeit non-verbally. Within the context of marriage, it conveys the soothing message, 'You are uniquely special to me.' Within the context
of marriage, it conveys the healing message, 'I find my place of belonging, my reason for being, in you.' Within the context of marriage, it is the language of permanent, unending, faithful love which alone can eliminate the fear of rejection and the pain of abandonment.
Second, we must consider what the ideal of marriage is. Marriage, as God planned it, means commitment, permanence, fidelity. It means tenderness, understanding, the cluster of intimacies we looked at in chapter one.
Put these two superlatives together: a superlative, non-verbal language of love (non-verbal because it transcends the world of words), and a superlative uniting relationship, and you begin to understand the metaphor Paul uses when he reminds us that the genital union was intended, by the divine architect, to reflect the depth of the oneness and the degree of the commitment and the mystery of the relationship which have always existed between God the Father and God the Son. Genital fusion in any context other than marriage can never ever begin to reflect this wonder, this mystery, this other-worldliness. In any other context it is therefore second-best, and God does not want his children either to taste the bitter dregs of the second-best or to be content with this substitute for the real thing.
No. God intended that, within the relationship he designed to alleviate man's aloneness, this act should symbolize the cementing of that union. When two people fuse their bodies, they transcend their individuality by becoming literally one flesh.
The swing of the pendulum
We live in an interesting phase of our sexual history. If the 1960s go down in history as the peak of the sexual revolution, the 1980s should be noted for the beginning of the counter-revolution. It is not just in the counselling room that people are admitting that sexual experimentation results, not in fullness but in emptiness. Playboys, journalists and personalities as influential as the feminist, Germaine Greer, are drawing their own conclusions in the aftermath of the sexual orgies of the past twenty years.
George Leonard, a journalist writing in a well-known women's magazine, made this admission not very long ago:
Like millions of others, I welcomed the sexual revolution of the 'sixties with open arms. I even did my own part, through articles, to further it. How healthy, how long overdue this revolution seemed! After years centuries of repression, we were now to be free to discuss sexual matters in mixed company, to live together openly without being married, to obtain sexual information easily, to see erotic films and read erotic books, to try out previously forbidden acts and share erotic fantasies with our mates. The revolution enjoyed one swift victory after another .... We were on our way to an erotic utopia where informed, mutually consenting individuals could fully realise themselves sexually without public opprobrium or private guilt.3
George Leonard goes on to describe his about-turn, the gradual realization that to remove recreational genital intercourse, sex as sport, from all other social and ethical considerations, to divorce it from the context of 'empathy, compassion, morality, responsibility and sometimes even common politeness', resulted in the crudity which may be summed up in three sentences: 'Boy meets girl. Boy gets girl. They part.' And George Leonard comes to this rather moving conclusion:
Advancers of multiple sex have a saying: 'Why should I be satisfied with a sandwich where there's a feast out there?' They ask this because they have never experienced High Monogamy. Those of us who have tried both tend to see it differently. Casual recreational sex is hardly a feast not even a good, hearty sandwich. It is a diet of fast food served in plastic containers. Life's feast is available only to those who are willing and able to engage life on a deeply personal level, giving all, holding back nothing.... For those who can make the leap of commitment, the rewards are great: a rare tenderness, an exaltation, a highly
charged erotic ambience, surprise on a daily basis, transformation....4
Reflections like the above are not rare these days. They are becoming commonplace. They underline, from the poverty of man's experience, the wisdom of the God who would protect us from the effects of this trivialization of the sacred sex act.
To protect us from harm
'To protect? From what?' God, I believe, wants to protect us from the harm which comes so frequently to those who abuse genital love-play, who snatch it out of context for self-gratification. We must now observe some of the harmful effects which have scarred the lives of young men and women.
Genital intercourse, as I have said, is the non-verbal language God created for married couples to communicate that consoling message, 'You are unique special.' This specialness is the language of permanence. It is intended to be. Remove the act from context and you have that most deeply disturbing of all emotions: the pain of abandonment.
If you have ever seen a rag doll lying on the garden lawn, dirty, soggy from rain or dew, soiled, and if you have ever wondered how it might feel to be such a discarded toy, you are very near an accurate identification with the feeling of abandonment which sweeps over people who have allowed, or been forced to allow, their bodies to be used by another under the pseudonym of 'love' and who have then been relegated to the proverbial scrap-heap.
I encounter the anguish such people experience time and again in my counselling work. I think of the girl who told me she had had intercourse with her boyfriend because she thought he felt about her the same depth of love she felt for him. The day after they had slept together he admitted: 'There's nothing in it as far as I'm concerned. I just know where to touch a girl to make her sexually excited.' Or I think of the girl whose 'friend' forced sexual intimacies on her. 'I tried to scream but I was so frightened, the scream froze on my lips. The next day he apologized saying he thought all
girls wanted it. It hadn't occurred to him I might not be one of them.'
To have been used, abused, then tossed aside is not only terrifying: it is devastating. It drives people to drink, to drugs, to suicide in an attempt to block out the pain which refuses to go away. And God, far from being a spoil-sport, wants to protect us from this kind of pain.
And boys are not exempt from the pain: 'After Ruth told me she didn't love me any more, I was stunned. I remember walking and walking around the park, trying to make sense of it all. The hurt inside seemed more than I could take.'
The already high incidence of VD in Britain increases yearly. Contrary to common belief, VD cannot be contracted from toilet seats, soiled towels or dirty sheets; it can only be contracted through sexual involvement with someone who is already carrying the disease.
Venereal disease is serious. Gonorrhea, the disease which is ever on the increase, produces a severe inflammation of the sex organs and unless it is treated early and effectively, can cause serious damage to genital tracts of both men and women.
Gonorrhea of the throat is also on the increase. This, too, is caused by sexual activity: oral sex. In oral sex the girl admits her boyfriend's penis into her mouth and caresses it with her lips and tongue and the male stimulates his girlfriend's clitoris with his mouth and tongue.
Oral sex has been described as 'the sex fad of the seventies'.5 Popularized by glossy magazines, sex books, blue movies and so-called art, the craze continues into the eighties. As Dr Miriam Stoppard discovered in 1982 when writing her book Talking Sex, 'quite a few of you have experienced some kind of oral sex by the time you're sixteen.'6 This is frightening, because it is now an established fact that oral sex can be dangerous to health if indulged in with a partner who has contracted VD. If the mucous membrane in the mouth comes into contact with a diseased sex organ, then the disease gonorrhea of the throat may develop. Some medical
researches also believe that a person with a cold sore on the lip who indulges in oral-genital sex may be responsible for transmitting venereal disease.7
In addition to the dangers of contracting VD, we must consider the danger of cancer of the cervix. Medical research over the past few years has shown that cancer of the neck of the womb (the cervix) is far more common amongst girls who have indulged in genital intercourse with several partners than in those who have abstained. It is believed that the neck of the womb during the teenage years is highly sensitive, and exposure to semen, particularly if the semen is from a variety of partners, increases the likelihood of a cancerous condition developing. It follows that teenage girls who sleep around automatically place themselves at risk: the risk of developing cancer.
God wants to protect us from this wastage of life, from these debilitating diseases. The answer is not to use the sheath but to keep genital intercourse within the context God has ordained: the committed relationship of marriage.
And, to add to the perils above, there is always the possibility that the girl will conceive a child. No contraceptive device is foolproof.
I happened to be traveling from Cambridge to Nottingham on Saturday 12 May 1984 and, to while away the time in the 'Little Chief', I picked up a copy of Daily Mail. Two headlines in particular caught my eye:
'Girl, 15, who killed baby is set free'.
'For my baby, the mother you will never see'.
I quote from the first account: 'A tragic schoolgirl who stabbed her secret baby to death was freed by a judge yesterday.
'Mr. Justice Webster heard how the 15-year-old girl kept her unwanted pregnancy a secret from her parents and classmates for nine months.
'Finally, while recovering from the birth just before Christmas, she repeatedly stabbed her new-born daughter.
'The girl's mother discovered her daughter's horrifying
secret four days later and found the body in a plastic bag. She called the police.
'Mr. Stephen Wayne, defending, said at Oxford Crown Court: "She has labeled herself a murderess and needs a considerable amount of help ...."
'The girl left the court in the arms of her parents.'
The second account described the reaction of a nineteen-year-old mother to an Appeals Court injunction that her four-year-old daughter should be adopted by foster parents. The mother had made a tape-recording which will be kept by solicitors until her daughter is eighteen years old. The newspaper records: 'Fighting back the tears, the nineteen-year-old said ... "I just had to let my little girl know how much I love her. It's terrible I may never see her again and that she won't hear the tape until she's about the age I am now." '
These two heart-breaking situations 'happened' to be recorded in the same newspaper. That same week I had been asked for help by several Christian girls: one who had suffered the indignity of a back-street abortion, another whose baby (conceived out of wedlock) had miscarried. Both girls had kept their secret completely private.
And God wants to protect us from the need to conceal these ghastly secrets. God wants to protect from the kind of anguish the two teenage mothers I have mentioned must have gone through and will continue to go through for years to come.
God's protection of others
But it is not just the individual God is concerned with. We have seen already in this book the truth of John Donne's claim, 'No man is an island'. Whatever we do, or fail to do, has repercussions for others.
Think back to those tragedies highlighted in the newspaper. Think of a new-born baby being butchered to death: of a four-year-old girl being deprived of her mother. Think of the thousands of unwanted children who are born into this world and who bleat for most of their lives, 'I didn't ask to be born.' God would protect innocent children from the pain of a loveless future; the foetus from a premature death.
Or think of the parents of that teenage murderess. How long will it take them to recover? Will they ever recover? Think of the parents of any young person who brings an unwanted child into the world. God wants to protect parents of teenagers and young adults from the pain and shame, the strain and blame this trauma almost always brings in its wake.
No. God is not a spoil-sport God. Love is what God is: protective, discerning, all-wise love. That is why genital intercourse, according to the Bible's teaching, knows of only one context: marriage.
Love your neighbour as yourself
It is customary today to teach teenagers to believe that as long as you love your partner, any kind of genital sport is acceptable. Miriam Stoppard seems to condone the views expressed by teenagers in reply to her questionnaire:
'When is heavy petting OK?
'Girls: usually only when you love the boy. Not on the first date.
'Boys: Quite a lot of boys hope it will be on the first or second date.
'How old should you be?
'Girls: No particular age, only when you love the boy.
'Boys: By fifteen.'8
But the question needs to be asked, what does this over-worked word 'love' mean? Does it mean the warm feelings which permeate every practice of your being when you have fallen in love? Surely not! Those feelings disappear like smoke in a breeze. This must never be the working definition of love used by Christian couples. Rather, Jesus' definition should be the framework within which we operate: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'
A person who loves himself never inflicts unnecessary harm on his body, never puts himself in the way of an activity
which will sear the conscience, maybe for ever. Shall we, then, condone practices which might bring untold harm to our partner and still call it love? Moreover, shall we, in the name of love, risk bringing little lives into the world only to abandon them to children's homes, foster parents, or lovingly give them to adoptive parents? (I am not belittling the marvellous ministry of many surrogate parents. I am underlining the sheer irresponsibility of behaviour which precipitates the need for such people.)
Moreover, as Christians we have a responsibility to our parents: to love them, respect them, honour them. Can we, as Christians, then, add our voice to those who claim: 'I'm a BIG girl now. I'm going to stop worrying about what my mother says and enjoy this moment'? I think not.
As Christians we have a decision to make. Jim Wallis puts it well, 'Each generation of believers must decide whether their Christianity will have anything to do with Jesus.'9 A Christian is one who has enlisted for the kingdom of God. A Christian is one who knows Jesus as Lord. And a Christian is one ought to obey the King. The tragedy is that, today, among the countless Bible-believing, Jesus-accepting Christians, only a minority are Bible-observing, Jesus-obeying Christians. That is why I say we have a decision to make. In the words of Joshua 24:15, 'If serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served ... or the gods ... in whose land you are living'. A free paraphrase of that verse might read like this: 'Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve: the goddess of the world in which you live: sex, or King Jesus.' But we cannot serve both, as we shall observe further in the next chapter.
Notes for Chapter five
1. Margery Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit (Heinemann, 1977), pp. 14-15.
2. Miriam Stoppard, Talking Sex (Piccolo Books, 1982), pp. 60-61.
3. George Leonard, 'Sex without Love: Is it enough?' (Woman's Journal, March 1983), p. 54.
4. 'Sex without Love', p. 56.
5. Tim La Haye, The Act of Marriage (Zondervan, 1976), p. 296.
6. Talking Sex, p. 75.
7. The Act of Marriage, p. 279.
8. Talking Sex, p. 58.
9. Jim Wallis, The Call to Conversion (Lion Publishing, 1981). p.xiv.
Chapter Six || Table of Contents