Do purity pledges lead to premature marriage?

[Billy Cox]

A few years ago, I saw a 'purity ceremony' at a church. In this ceremony, a father gave his two daughters a purity ring and they pledged to 'give themselves' only to their future husband.

While it seems like pretty strong reinforcement for abstinence prior to marriage, I wonder if it might also reinforce the idea that it's better to marry (at a young age and/or to the wrong person) than to burn.

What think ye?

[Shea Zellweger]

A few years ago, I saw a 'purity ceremony' at a church. In this ceremony, a father gave his two daughters a purity ring and they pledged to 'give themselves' only to their future husband.

While it seems like pretty strong reinforcement for abstinence prior to marriage, I wonder if it might also reinforce the idea that it's better to marry (at a young age and/or to the wrong person) than to burn.


What think ye?

I can't speak for this particular family, but I've heard fathers say things akin to your italicized statement. Had one preacher say he would give his (15 year old) daughter away in marriage that very day if he thought/knew she intended to lose her virginity that night.

I have heard statistics which state that people who have purity rings, etc, are less likely to use any form of contraceptive, so they can lead to unplanned pregnancies. However, I think these pledges are still a generally good idea, so long as they're made by the children of their own volition, rather than having a "shotgun wedding to Jesus," as it were.

[Dave McClung]

I have heard statistics which state that people who have purity rings, etc, are less likely to use any form of contraceptive, so they can lead to unplanned pregnancies. However, I think these pledges are still a generally good idea, so long as they're made by the children of their own volition, rather than having a "shotgun wedding to Jesus," as it were.

I hope you don't accept such statistics without considering who is presenting them and how the data was collected. Frankly, I am skeptical of all such "research." How would anyone collect such data in an unbiased manner?

[Shea Zellweger]

I hope you don't accept such statistics without considering who is presenting them and how the data was collected. Frankly, I am skeptical of all such "research." How would anyone collect such data in an unbiased manner?

My point was far more focused on the "however" portion of that paragraph.

I do, however, understand why such statistics would be accurate- there have been occasions in my life where I knew full well I would be doing something, but refused to "acknowledge" it, and even insisted that it would not be happening. One instance I can recall is going to a 7th grade dance (I wasn't allowed) in my "work clothes" because I was spending the evening at a friend's place and didn't want to pack an extra outfit because that would have been like admitting that I planned to break the rules. I realize that example is not on the same level of premarital sex, but it would be the kind of mindset that would lead a person not to buy condoms before a date because it would be like admitting premeditated sin. Now, I don't know what percentage of the population thinks like me, and many have assured to me that I'm very much the minority, but that's where I'm coming from in regard to seeing that those statistics could have merit.

This is a story from 2008 that caught a lot of flack from the evangelical community, at least where we were located at the time. It's likely biased, but also more likely to be closer to the truth than a study performed by the founders of "true love waits."

[Billie Goodson]

This is a story from 2008 that caught a lot of flack from the evangelical community, at least where we were located at the time. It's likely biased, but also more likely to be closer to the truth than a study performed by the founders of "true love waits."

I found this quote from the study to be interesting:

The new study does not suggest that virginity pledges are harmful, says Andrew Goldstein, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, because they were not associated with an increase in STDs or unplanned pregnancies.

This seems to contradict an earlier assertion of the study:

Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.

In this case, there is a "concern" that is unsupported by the facts. I am concerned that pink elephants may one day consume too much food and their flatulence emissions will cause holes in the ozone. Facts aren't supporting that right now, but I don't think that proves me wrong.

[Mike Fraley]

I don't have stats to confirm my beliefs on this, and I'll admit that straightforward. I only have anecdotal information.

My biggest objection to such ceremonies and mindsets on which their based is that they tell people to save sex for the person they are going to marry, and not drill into them that it is to be saved for marriage. It may seem like semantics, but in the real world, it isn't. I've known a good number of Christians saying to themselves "I'm going to marry him/her anyway, so what's the difference?" I knew of a few guys that would even use such ideas to their advantage to lure girls into sex. The line was "We're already married in God's eyes." Of course after the breakup, neither one of them considered themselves divorced, but only foolish to have believed.

The further harm from this is that it places an unnecessary value on virginity, rather than abstinence. The mindset prepares the young people to say, "Well, I'm not a virgin anymore, so what's the difference if I do it again?"

I think that if we changed the emphasis from "the person I'm going to marry" to "marriage," and emphasis from "virginity" to "abstinence," then I'm cool with it.

[Billie Goodson]

Mike, you make a useful distinction -- thanks for that perspective.

I listened to Christopher West a year or two ago give a talk about the Eucharist and Marriage. It changed my perspective on how I view expressions of sexuality. There are things that keep bouncing around my head and one day I want to spend some more time developing the thoughts into a paper. Essentially, the rough idea revolves around the Eucharist as an expression of Christ giving Himself to the church, just was sexual intimacy (what JPII referred to as the "marital embrace") is us giving of ourselves to one another in a commitment that transcends self into a relationship of oneness. When we take sexual intimacy to that level it involves a sacredness that cannot be expressed outside of a relationship that extends beyond a certificate or vow but into the very core of who and what we are. Something like that...

[Linda Bechtold]

I don't have stats to confirm my beliefs on this, and I'll admit that straightforward. I only have anecdotal information.

My biggest objection to such ceremonies and mindsets on which their based is that they tell people to save sex for the person they are going to marry, and not drill into them that it is to be saved for marriage. It may seem like semantics, but in the real world, it isn't. I've known a good number of Christians saying to themselves "I'm going to marry him/her anyway, so what's the difference?" I knew of a few guys that would even use such ideas to their advantage to lure girls into sex. The line was "We're already married in God's eyes." Of course after the breakup, neither one of them considered themselves divorced, but only foolish to have believed.

The further harm from this is that it places an unnecessary value on virginity, rather than abstinence. The mindset prepares the young people to say, "Well, I'm not a virgin anymore, so what's the difference if I do it again?"

I think that if we changed the emphasis from "the person I'm going to marry" to "marriage," and emphasis from "virginity" to "abstinence," then I'm cool with it.

I have never heard it put "until you meet the person you are going to marry" in fact part of the purity ceremony is knowing you will take your purity ring off and give it to your intended spouse during the wedding ceremony so I'm not sure how that could be read any other way except "until marriage". We have been to several wedding ceremonies where this was done and it was a beautiful part of the wedding.

[Benjamin Burch]

A few years ago, I saw a 'purity ceremony' at a church. In this ceremony, a father gave his two daughters a purity ring and they pledged to 'give themselves' only to their future husband.

While it seems like pretty strong reinforcement for abstinence prior to marriage, I wonder if it might also reinforce the idea that it's better to marry (at a young age and/or to the wrong person) than to burn.

What think ye?

I think this issue is wrapped up in a messed up sexual ethic which we in the Church possess, which is also wrapped up in an entirely really messed up Moral Ethic.

Again, this is mostly anecdotal, so I want to throw that out there at the start.

However, it seems that our number one reason for not wanting to do something is because it is "sin." That's all good and well, but why are actions sinful? Because the Bible says so? I guess that's a nice start, but it is hardly a redeeming, transforming, empowering Ethic. In fact, I find it is also the exact opposite.

If we could really begin to think through sin as actions which rob the humanity of ourselves and others. Which rob the sacredness of creation and relationships. Which objectify the other whom we are called to treat as a subject.

We could then begin to talk through the way in which humanity and sacredness is displayed in Jesus, the Christ, and relationships are ultimately to be modeled after Christ's relationship to the Church and to us.

Then, and only then, can we begin to move into a redeeming, restoring, transforming, empowering Ethic.

Until then we will often be left with purity ceremonies which, while they are attempting to enforce good morals, are often little more than reinforcing a rule which, for some odd reason, has been elevated above other rules we are supposed to follow. Instead, we should be practicing parenting in such a way that instills the worth, value, and sacredness of our sons' and daughters' humanity. We should be instilling them with the confidence, self-assuredness, and self-worth that they would not let anyone take something from them that they did not desire with all of their heart to give away to that person. We should be reminding them of the worth and value of others so that they would not be one who, for any reason, would attempt to take from someone else that which they did not want with all of their heart to give away to them. We should also be teaching our children the rich blessing that is marriage (and living it out before them) and the incredible power that saving sex for that relationship will have for building and strengthening that relationship.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of parents doing this. I'm also not saying that every child who is raised this way will wait. Some won't. That's simply the case. But I am saying that overall, in the Church, whether we do this or not, we often undercut this effort by the way we talk about morals and sin. It so often a rule.

I've never met a 20 year old virgin who was so because they believed that that God wanted them to be that way and it would be "sin" to have sex who was not also in a hurry to find a wife/husband.

I've met few 20 year old virgins who are so because they will not settle and sell themselves short on what they are worth and what their future spouse is worth. These were those who I felt were living out a Christian Ethic. Oddly enough, they were not in a hurry to get married. Even more odd, half of them were atheists.

[Dale Cozby]

I read the methodology of the recent survey.
They used matched sampling rather than regression sampling as the base of the survey.
They essentially sought to take out any other factors beside the pledge making to compare pledgers with non-pledgers.
In other words:
They matched up pledgers to non-pledgers using a 128 criteria!

They compared ("matched to nearest neighbor") those who were most alike in all other ways except the taking of a pledge to see any difference the pledge might have by itself.

Thus this method sounds like the pledge doesn't work, but in actuality the pledge is part of a larger picture that isn't taken into account by the survey. Just making a pledge isn't making that big a difference overall, if it takes places outside of all the other factors that support it.

Here is the survey results: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...urcetype=HWCIT

[Dale Cozby]

I've never met a 20 year old virgin who was so because they believed that that God wanted them to be that way and it would be "sin" to have sex who was not also in a hurry to find a wife/husband.

Well I could introduce you to a lot of them Ben. Of course they aren't 20 now, but that was very much part of the reason when they were 20. They sought to honor God with their body. Me inlcuded.

I've met few 20 year old virgins who are so because they will not settle and sell themselves short on what they are worth and what their future spouse is worth. These were those who I felt were living out a Christian Ethic. Oddly enough, they were not in a hurry to get married. Even more odd, half of them were atheists.

I think many of the people I know who waited also felt this way too, except they were ALL Christian people. All of them.
Perhaps your view of the church is shaped by your lack of people who are living out the Christian ethic around you. While there are many under the roof of the church who profess Christ and do nothing but count on grace to fix all their problems as they live by their own standards, others seek to live the most excellent way found in scriptures every day and encourage others to do so as well. Together that pure and holy core community supports those ethics you speak of not being lived out.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well I could introduce you to a lot of them Ben. Of course they aren't 20 now, but that was very much part of the reason when they were 20. They sought to honor God with their body. Me inlcuded.

My point was that this is not nearly a deep enough foundation for a Christian Ethic. It is not simply "because God said so." We are assured of the "why God said so" and it is precisely the why which informs our ethics.

[Bob Hunter]

There is an article on Bratcher's website that discusses the validity of purity pledges, etc. You might want to read it, I found it helpful

http://www.crivoice.org/WT-sexuality.html

[Roland Hearn]

I have a serious problem with the idea of "purity pledges." It is true, in my observation, that at almost every point we want to replace the power of love and grace with a rule or control mechanism. Love effectively demonstrated and activated is the best protection for children in making good choices in the process of becoming adults. Control mechanisms can have powerful negative back lashes, even if they achieve the specific result we are hoping for. Acceptance and worth flowing from significant people is the most powerful motivator in a teenagers life. It is how peer pressure works. These pledges can so easily be parents taking advantage of precisely the same mechanism to advance their own agenda. Do you know what is worse than premarital sex -loveless churches and homes that have found ways to use rules, ceremonies and shame to achieve certain performance goals.

A person may say that it is because of love that these steps are taken. I would suggest real love invests life in the other not a ceremony to garner a promise that fulfills a perceived need. We are just constantly convinced that love is not enough, it needs help. The real danger is what happens when there is failure. A promise of this kind is not a guarentee it just helps the parents feel better, what does the teen do with their struggles?

[Benjamin Burch]

A few years ago, I saw a 'purity ceremony' at a church. In this ceremony, a father gave his two daughters a purity ring and they pledged to 'give themselves' only to their future husband.

While it seems like pretty strong reinforcement for abstinence prior to marriage, I wonder if it might also reinforce the idea that it's better to marry (at a young age and/or to the wrong person) than to burn.

What think ye?

Visit a Nazarene University. You'll get your answer very quickly. It is a resounding "YES!"

[Dale Cozby]

real love invests life in the other not a ceremony to garner a promise that fulfills a perceived need.

Could this be applied to marriage as well? why all the fuss about getting married if real love doesn't need any vows? why make any vows or promises that might be broken later on if it will result in additional guilt or shame? Right?

We are just constantly convinced that love is not enough, it needs help. The real danger is what happens when there is failure. A promise of this kind is not a guarentee it just helps the parents feel better, what does the teen do with their struggles?

Real parents already know that nothing in life is guaranteed. Real parents still love their kids and forgive them when the mess up, break a promise or whatever. The ceremony I think, isn't just to bring assurance of rule following to parents, but a resolve to the youth. Any token of that promise to purity like a ring in a marriage is kept a a reminder to be faithful. Faithfulness is a value and virtue I want my kids to have in life. If they fail, then they fail and we move on to other lessons in life, like God's faithfulness to them even when they aren't faithful themselves and what it means to know you are loved even when a sinner/trespasser.

at almost every point we want to replace the power of love and grace with a rule or control mechanism.

What is your definition of the "power of love"?

Some thoughts: Love is the highest law, the supreme rule of life that all the other laws hang on. Grace is the law of love at work for those who fail to obey the law of love. To follow the most excellent way so we need not ask for more grace and to offer grace to others when they do not follow the most excellent way, thus to be like Jesus

I could type more, but have to get to bed now...later guys.

[Greg Farra]

Visit a Nazarene University. You'll get your answer very quickly. It is a resounding "YES!"

Why do you think I sent my daughter to MVNU? If I get her married off, I save a ton of money!

[Roland Hearn]

Could this be applied to marriage as well? why all the fuss about getting married if real love doesn't need any vows? why make any vows or promises that might be broken later on if it will result in additional guilt or shame? Right?

As you can't possibly be serious to equate a marriage ceremony with all that it entails to a purity ceremony, a fairly recent development with very little historical or biblical connection, I won't really respond to the question.

Real parents already know that nothing in life is guaranteed. Real parents still love their kids and forgive them when the mess up, break a promise or whatever. The ceremony I think, isn't just to bring assurance of rule following to parents, but a resolve to the youth. Any token of that promise to purity like a ring in a marriage is kept a a reminder to be faithful. Faithfulness is a value and virtue I want my kids to have in life. If they fail, then they fail and we move on to other lessons in life, like God's faithfulness to them even when they aren't faithful themselves and what it means to know you are loved even when a sinner/trespasser.

So what is the ceremony for again then? Why can't resolve flow from a mutually affirming and healthy relationship, how is that added to by a ceremony of this type? BTW what does the adjective "real" intend to imply in this paragraph?

What is your definition of the "power of love"?

Christ

Some thoughts: Love is the highest law, the supreme rule of life that all the other laws hang on.

It doesn't take too much attention to recongize that when Christ declared love as the highest law he wasn't simply saying it was at the top of a heirachy of law he was saying it was transcendent -it is the very nature of God.

Grace is the law of love at work for those who fail to obey the law of love.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here but there is no real way to distinquish an adequate definition of love and an adequate definition of grace. You might call one the noun and the other the verb but that would be a little trite not to mention literally inaccurate.

To follow the most excellent way so we need not ask for more grace and to offer grace to others when they do not follow the most excellent way, thus to be like Jesus

I don't see grace as having only to do with failure; it is the very empowerment of the life of love. I would say we always need more grace and we always need to give more grace to others whether or not we perceive them as operating in the more excellent way - I don't know how that applies to the idea of purity ceremonies, however.

[Ryan Plott]

Visit a Nazarene University. You'll get your answer very quickly. It is a resounding "YES!"

I really cannot over-emphasize how true that statement is or how much it made me laugh. So, so, so very true!

[Billy Cox]

Visit a Nazarene University. You'll get your answer very quickly. It is a resounding "YES!"

Maybe delaying marriage until adulthood conflicts with something hardwired into our nature.

[Benjamin Burch]

Maybe delaying marriage until adulthood conflicts with something hardwired into our nature.

Might be why this is a fairly modern thing.

Surely evolution will see to make it the norm and adjust our sexual drives accordingly.... right??

[Dana Grant]

Well, I can only speak from personal experience......our son is in a very serious relationship, and both of them have pledged purity. He is almost 26, and she is 22. They have talked about getting married in a 1 1/2 to 2 years -- after she finishes her master's degree.

Our daughter has made the decision not to date at this point. She has several male friends, but that's what they are, friendships. She has read a lot of Joshua Harris and has some definite ideas on the whole matter of dating and relationships.

We also know one couple who waited until their actual WEDDING to experience their first kiss!! They were in their mid-20s, I guess, by then. And I know one young lady who plans to wait until her wedding to experience her first kiss!! I had never really heard of that before, but I've heard of it a few times since the first couple we knew. Interesting, huh?

So, maybe in some cases young people may get married early, but so far in our experience it hasn't been that way.

[Dana Grant]

One other thing -- I suppose we didn't actually do a "purity pledge" ceremony. We took each child out to dinner and just discussed the whole aspect of dating and marriage. We gave each of them a nice piece of jewelry -- our son a gold chain, our daughter a gold ring. We didn't make them pledge to us anything. We asked them to make that a matter of prayer and if they were going to promise anything, it would be to God. We told them that no matter what happened in their lives, we would love them. We explained that the little trinket that we gave them was just a little reminder of our conversation.

We know of people who ask their children to sign a document pledging their purity. We told our children that we weren't asking for a pledge from them, but that we just wanted to talk about the importance of waiting and the specialness of waiting. If they choose not to wait, that is between them and God. To this day, they both wear the gifts we gave them every day. We pray for them to make wise choices in their lives. That's all we can do....and love them.

Now I think I'm finished....LOL

Dana

[Glenda Harvey]

I think it has always been common for some Christian young people to marry early because they want to wait for marriage for sex but they don't want to wait too long. I doubt that the purity pledges have made much difference in this regard. My kids both went through purity ceremonies and I think it did help them to make better decisions.

[Kevin Rector]

Wow, I must be crazy out of the loop. I've never heard of a purity ceremonies.

[Julie Reed]

One other thing -- I suppose we didn't actually do a "purity pledge" ceremony. We took each child out to dinner and just discussed the whole aspect of dating and marriage. We gave each of them a nice piece of jewelry -- our son a gold chain, our daughter a gold ring. We didn't make them pledge to us anything. We asked them to make that a matter of prayer and if they were going to promise anything, it would be to God. We told them that no matter what happened in their lives, we would love them. We explained that the little trinket that we gave them was just a little reminder of our conversation.

We know of people who ask their children to sign a document pledging their purity. We told our children that we weren't asking for a pledge from them, but that we just wanted to talk about the importance of waiting and the specialness of waiting. If they choose not to wait, that is between them and God. To this day, they both wear the gifts we gave them every day. We pray for them to make wise choices in their lives. That's all we can do....and love them.

Now I think I'm finished....LOL

Dana

Dana, thank you so much for your post! My daughter has a purity ring and we went about the same way of presenting it to her. I think a Christian father figure is so important in a daughters life and makes such a difference. I could go on and on about that but I won't here. I think it a beautiful idea, whether it be a purity ring, a keepsake or even a flower that includes a personal talk with them on purity. Anything that is presented to a daughter or son in a deep memorable serious setting really does make an impact on them.

We also did a teen purity study series with the girls in our church: "Wild About You" (http://www.lifeway.com/product/001299971/) last year. Three of us taught it. (women, no men) The study book with this packet, has the looks of a teen magazine that grabs the attention of anyone reading it. The lessons were inside. A short video is played before each lesson that is introduced and then we addressed the study. We added other ideas as we did this series, we did crafts, talked about beauty, also had a tea. At the end, we had a banquet where all the girls were invited and their parents. Some did not have both sets of parents there but it still worked wonderfully. Each parent or sponsor stood and read a letter that they addressed to their (girl) daughter that told what their daughter meant to them and how proud they were of them. Each girl was presented a rose. Some parents also gave necklaces or other gifts. To say the least, there was not a dry eye anywhere in the house. Our pastors wife shared a devotion that was truly touching and appropriate for the whole event. It was a truly blessed time for everyone. Our prayers are that it will always be a wonderful memory that each girl can look back on and be uplifted.

On a personal note I also have to add that when my husband read our letter to our daughter, it was one of the most beautiful experiences I will always cherish.

[David Pettigrew]

Uuuuug I don't want to think about this. My daughter is four. Can't I wait a few years before wrestling with this? I have enough on my plate ;(

Personally, I find these ceremonies a bit creepy.

When I was a youth pastor, we had a True Love Waits weekend that culminated with parents presenting their teens with a purity ring. Using purely anecdotal data, it didn't seem to have much effect. I've often said that instead of impressing upon them the message of waiting, we should have focused on the message of serving.

[Mike Fraley]

Our daughter has made the decision not to date at this point. She has several male friends, but that's what they are, friendships. She has read a lot of Joshua Harris and has some definite ideas on the whole matter of dating and relationships.

I'm familiar with his concepts in I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and I wasn't particularly impressed. It's partly because he emphasizes how group courting should happen, then the man should ask the father's permission to propose to his daughter, and then the happy couple gets married. The problem with that model is 1) You never really get to see what the person is like outside of a group dynamic. People respond and behave differently in different situations. It would be a shame to see the person in their own element for the first time on a honeymoon. 2) Asking for the father's permission is an old custom, but it smacks of ownership. It seems to me that it is one male asking if he can have another male's property. And finally, 3) How do this couple go from liking each other in a crowd to marriage? Harris, at least in that book, provided no link between the two. They just kind of get married. It seems to me that in this system he hasn't eliminated the dating element where you discover more about the person, examine compatibility, and examine relationship expectations. All he's done is moved those things until after you're married.

We also know one couple who waited until their actual WEDDING to experience their first kiss!! They were in their mid-20s, I guess, by then. And I know one young lady who plans to wait until her wedding to experience her first kiss!! I had never really heard of that before, but I've heard of it a few times since the first couple we knew. Interesting, huh?

Interesting is one word to ascribe to it. It's provoked my interest more than once. The reason why is that such couples REALLY have to establish some hard lines of communication concerning sexual expectations once they've got the ring on. But this may take some explaining, so let me back up a bit and provide a bit of background.

First, one of the problems is that Christian couples face is sexual guilt once they're married. Yes, now that they're married, they face guilt from just having had sex with their spouse. The last number that I heard was that 80% of Christian women (I don't remember the number for men, but I remember it was a bit lower) feel guilt and shame on or after their honeymoon. Some have continued issues of guilt that lead some time into the marriage. Why is this? It's because for years we pound it into kids "SEX IS BAD!" Through their youth the message is always "Sex is bad, sex is bad, sex is bad." Now we get married and suddenly, "Sex is good!" Human beings cannot switch gears that quickly. So, even though they may cognitively know that sex is a positive and wonderful thing, they haven't changed their emotional reaction and thus still feel some level of guilt and shame for participating in it.

Second, human being really need time to warm up to a sexual relationship. The general pattern of intimacy is that people increase the level of physical intimacy that they have until reaching a point of sexual intercourse (of course with Christian couples we like to keep that last part until after the rings are on).

My caution with the kissing for the first time on the wedding day is that the couple really should make sure that they have clear sexual expectations and how they are going to let that relationship develop. I'm not sure that there should be the huge expectation that they're going to go from 0 to 60 in one night. I'm not sure that our psyche is set up from going to no sexual contact to sexual intercourse without some emotional repercussions. Such couples should be cautioned to talk about how they are going to begin their sexual exploration, keeping an open mind to each others boundaries at any given stage, and keep talking about what their eventual desires, wants, and needs are and what they think they're going to be.

Again, I'm not going to say that the practice is bad outright. It may be right for some couples (certainly not for me), but such couples need to be aware of the disadvantages and be aware of the potential pitfalls so that they can have the kind of loving sexual relationship that the no doubt envision that they would have.

Edit: Edited for clarity.

[David Pettigrew]

Billy, I guess I didn't really answer your question. I do not think purity pledges necessarily lead to premature marriage, but I don't think they prevent premature sex. That takes a lot more than a pledge and a ceremony, just as a ring and ceremony are no guarantee of fidelity within marriage.

[Charlene Clevenger]

I can see the value of a discussion between parents and teens, but a purity pledge ceremony in front of a congregations sounds extreme. I would think the young people would be terribly embarrassed. I know I would be.

[Mike Fraley]

I have never heard it put "until you meet the person you are going to marry" in fact part of the purity ceremony is knowing you will take your purity ring off and give it to your intended spouse during the wedding ceremony so I'm not sure how that could be read any other way except "until marriage". We have been to several wedding ceremonies where this was done and it was a beautiful part of the wedding.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand me. It's not stated explicitly as "until you meet the person you're going to marry," and I've not seen a purity ceremony itself. However, I have met a number of people who wear purity rings saying, "I'm saving myself for the person I'm going to marry," and seldom have I heard, "I'm saving myself for marriage." In their minds it may not be much different, but it's an important distinction. I should also like to make note of some other things said in this thread:

A few years ago, I saw a 'purity ceremony' at a church. In this ceremony, a father gave his two daughters a purity ring and they pledged to 'give themselves' only to their future husband.

Note that Billy's words (unintentionally) the person, not the state of marriage.

Also from the link posted to Dr. Bratcher's commentary:

During the Purity Balls girls and teenagers are told to keep themselves pure for their future husbands, and as seen in the pledge, fathers pledge to "cover" their daughters and protect their virginity.

Again, focusing on the person not the covenant of marriage. It all seems like semantics, that is until you talk to a number of teens who said that they thought they were saving themselves for the person they were going to marry, only to have sex with them, and found out that they weren't really getting married to that person.

Note that I'm not saying anything bad about purity ceremonies themselves, I'm saying that we need to be careful about the way we talk to teens about sex and marriage. We need to emphasize the right concepts. I know it's hard to imagine how someone might interpret something differently than how you view the ideas in the ceremony... but trust me... they do. Sometimes it makes a big difference in their sexual behavior.

[Mike Fraley]

We seem to constantly be in a dilemma about doing away with "old customs" because we want to be "progressive". Then we read in the old and new testament about how God constantly was striving to implant customs and remembrance into his people. He instituted feasts and holy days (now holidays) to remind people of His provision to His people. Just seems odd.

Good point. But, just remember that if we did do this the Old Testament way, I would have had to give my father in law three camels, then I would take my wife into a tent in the middle of the celebration and then come out to produce the sheet a bit later.

I think I liked the way I did my wedding a bit better.

[Julie Reed]

Uuuuug I don't want to think about this. My daughter is four. Can't I wait a few years before wrestling with this? I have enough on my plate ;(

Personally, I find these ceremonies a bit creepy.

When I was a youth pastor, we had a True Love Waits weekend that culminated with parents presenting their teens with a purity ring. Using purely anecdotal data, it didn't seem to have much effect. I've often said that instead of impressing upon them the message of waiting, we should have focused on the message of serving.

Maybe you should not of been in charge of the "True Love Waits" if you disliked it so much.

I'm not sure what your "Uuuuging" about. I find that a very immature response.

In our study sessions we focused on purity and why it was important but we also focused on self esteem. In the letters that each parent wrote we talked about gifts that we thought our children had, and what they meant to us and others. It wasn't really a pledge but a focus on God loving them so much! "Wild about You" is a good series that talks about the love God has for them. I would encourage anyone that attacks this issue with teens to do it prayerfully, because it must be addressed, whether in Sunday School or in another church setting. Our kids are attacked everyday. For instance, did you know that in some schools being a virgin is not cool and the peer pressure of it is very intense.

I'm not saying your putting your head in the sand, but to say that this was creepy is really kind of offensive to me after I just said it was a moving experience. Maybe I did not explain it as well as you would of...

The way a father impacts a daughters life is very strong. If he is abusive to his wife or kids the percentage of their children marrying someone that is abusive is high. If a father is distant to his children, the percentage of them marrying a distant mate is also high. How many times have you met a woman that has a distorted view of what a husband should be and is in a marriage that has damaged her even more because of what she was use to growing up. If her earthly father does not have a good relationship with her does this not even affect her view of what her heavenly father is like? I've met many women who have not had good relationships with their earthly fathers and it has affected their view of what a personal relationship with God would be. On the flip side, I have met many women who have grown up in terrible atmospheres where they have finally come to terms and have actually said to me after they came to know Christ that, I did not have an earthly father but Jesus is my father now.


If the role of the church can also make a teen feel valued and appreciated, loved and contribute to their self esteem and draw them to an even closer commitment to Christ, then I am all for it.
Wanting to talk about being a servant instead of remaining pure for your husband ? Both have value and I would talk about them both.

[James Diggs]

I haven't read through the whole thread- seems like a good and in depth discussion. I don't know if this has already been conveyed but my biggest objection to a purity pledge is that it has a very shallow definition of "purity" that actually works against what sexual purity and holiness is ultimately all about.

I will never let my kids (even as they now approach their teen years) participate in such a pledge that reduces sexual purity to just the issue of keeping ones virginity until marriage. It isn't that I don't encourage that and want that for my kids, but I would much rather raise kids that learn to embrace a healthy sexual identity than protect their virginity at all costs as if that is all sexual purity is about.

Certainly, sexual promiscuity is damaging to a healthy sexuality identity as it fails to engage in sexual activity within an environment where mutual love, commitment and submission are enacted in ways that help us embrace our own humanity and the humanity of the other in deeper and richer ways.

However, hyper focusing on sexual purity as just an "act" that must be denied until a certain time or you lose the purity of that act in the "right time" just compartmentalizes our sexuality further as an "act" and fails to connect the idea of sexual purity to healthy sexuality within the context of our humanity.

We are a sexually repressed group, and the way we talk about sexuality in the church just reinforces that in our culture. We talk about sex as if it is just an action and not part of our human identity.

This is why kids that lose their virginity, start talking about "second virginity" (thanks to some youth pastors across America) as if purity is about being a virgin.

Defining sexual purity as as just "no sex before marriage" misleads people into thinking that just being sexually active adults within marriage is all sexual purity is about. As a Pastor who hears of various struggles in Christian marriages nothing can be further from the truth as couples wrestle with issues of unhealthy sexuality all the time. They are often surprised by the problem and rarely connect the dots with any trouble they might be having between their sex life and their relationship issues; showing again that sex has just been compartmentalized away from relationships in their minds.

Being a healthy, sexually pure person, is about living into our identity as sexual human beings in ways that honor ourselves and others. As Christians we believe marriage is the best place to fully live into such sexual expression, but that does not make "being married" the end game of sexual purity. It also doesn't mean that our sexuality as part of our human identity doesn't exist unless we are married as we often treat singleness as if people should be asexual. Again because we look at sex as an "act" rather than part of ALL of our humanity.

I would say that unless our kids understand how our sexuality is connected to the very basic premise of love thy neighbor as thyself they are missing the most critical starting point of it all. This is the framework we need the conversation of sexual purity to reside in. Purity pledges provides nothing but a misguided framework that I argue does more harm than good.

[Julie Reed]

I haven't read through the whole thread- seems like a good and in depth discussion. I don't know if this has already been conveyed but my biggest objection to a purity pledge is that it has a very shallow definition of "purity" that actually works against what sexual purity and holiness is ultimately all about.

I will never let my kids (even as they now approach their teen years) participate in such a pledge that reduces sexual purity to just the issue of keeping ones virginity until marriage. It isn't that I don't encourage that and want that for my kids, but I would much rather raise kids that learn to embrace a healthy sexual identity than protect their virginity at all costs as if that is all sexual purity is about.

Certainly, sexual promiscuity is damaging to a healthy sexuality identity as it fails to engage in sexual activity within an environment where mutual love, commitment and submission are enacted in ways that help us embrace our own humanity and the humanity of the other in deeper and richer ways.

However, hyper focusing on sexual purity as just an "act" that must be denied until a certain time or you lose the purity of that act in the "right time" just compartmentalizes our sexuality further as an "act" and fails to connect the idea of sexual purity to healthy sexuality within the context of our humanity.

We are a sexually repressed group, and the way we talk about sexuality in the church just reinforces that in our culture. We talk about sex as if it is just an action and not part of our human identity.

This is why kids that lose their virginity, start talking about "second virginity" (thanks to some youth pastors across America) as if purity is about being a virgin.

Defining sexual purity as as just "no sex before marriage" misleads people into thinking that just being sexually active adults within marriage is all sexual purity is about. As a Pastor who hears of various struggles in Christian marriages nothing can be further from the truth as couples wrestle with issues of unhealthy sexuality all the time. They are often surprised by the problem and rarely connect the dots with any trouble they might be having between their sex life and their relationship issues; showing again that sex has just been compartmentalized away from relationships in their minds.

Being a healthy, sexually pure person, is about living into our identity as sexual human beings in ways that honor ourselves and others. As Christians we believe marriage is the best place to fully live into such sexual expression, but that does not make "being married" the end game of sexual purity. It also doesn't mean that our sexuality as part of our human identity doesn't exist unless we are married as we often treat singleness as if people should be asexual. Again because we look at sex as an "act" rather than part of ALL of our humanity.

I would say that unless our kids understand how our sexuality is connected to the very basic premise of love thy neighbor as thyself they are missing the most critical starting point of it all. This is the framework we need the conversation of sexual purity to reside in. Purity pledges provides nothing but a misguided framework that I argue does more harm than good.

It amazes me how all the men in this thread seem to think that purity rings and pledges are not beneficial and yet almost all the women on this thread think it is a neat idea. Maybe we should talk about what happens when a person has premarital sex and the ramifications and guilt that they feel if it happens before marriage.

[Hans Deventer]

It amazes me how all the men in this thread seem to think that purity rings and pledges are not beneficial and yet almost all the women on this thread think it is a neat idea. Maybe we should talk about what happens when a person has premarital sex and the ramifications and guilt that they feel if it happens before marriage.

Guilt? I've never had sex (in whatever way you want to define it) but with the one woman I'm married to. So I'm oblivious to whatever ramifications there may be, as is Hannie.

The ramifications occur when people mess around with relations AND sex, married or not. Hannie has had several boy friends in the past but never did anything she now would have regretted. It's great to keep sexual intimacy for the one person you spend the rest of your life with, "till death do us part" of course. That's how we live, that's what we told our kids.

[Benjamin Burch]

I haven't read through the whole thread- seems like a good and in depth discussion. I don't know if this has already been conveyed but my biggest objection to a purity pledge is that it has a very shallow definition of "purity" that actually works against what sexual purity and holiness is ultimately all about.

I will never let my kids (even as they now approach their teen years) participate in such a pledge that reduces sexual purity to just the issue of keeping ones virginity until marriage. It isn't that I don't encourage that and want that for my kids, but I would much rather raise kids that learn to embrace a healthy sexual identity than protect their virginity at all costs as if that is all sexual purity is about.

Certainly, sexual promiscuity is damaging to a healthy sexuality identity as it fails to engage in sexual activity within an environment where mutual love, commitment and submission are enacted in ways that help us embrace our own humanity and the humanity of the other in deeper and richer ways.

However, hyper focusing on sexual purity as just an "act" that must be denied until a certain time or you lose the purity of that act in the "right time" just compartmentalizes our sexuality further as an "act" and fails to connect the idea of sexual purity to healthy sexuality within the context of our humanity.

We are a sexually repressed group, and the way we talk about sexuality in the church just reinforces that in our culture. We talk about sex as if it is just an action and not part of our human identity.

This is why kids that lose their virginity, start talking about "second virginity" (thanks to some youth pastors across America) as if purity is about being a virgin.

Defining sexual purity as as just "no sex before marriage" misleads people into thinking that just being sexually active adults within marriage is all sexual purity is about. As a Pastor who hears of various struggles in Christian marriages nothing can be further from the truth as couples wrestle with issues of unhealthy sexuality all the time. They are often surprised by the problem and rarely connect the dots with any trouble they might be having between their sex life and their relationship issues; showing again that sex has just been compartmentalized away from relationships in their minds.

Being a healthy, sexually pure person, is about living into our identity as sexual human beings in ways that honor ourselves and others. As Christians we believe marriage is the best place to fully live into such sexual expression, but that does not make "being married" the end game of sexual purity. It also doesn't mean that our sexuality as part of our human identity doesn't exist unless we are married as we often treat singleness as if people should be asexual. Again because we look at sex as an "act" rather than part of ALL of our humanity.

I would say that unless our kids understand how our sexuality is connected to the very basic premise of love thy neighbor as thyself they are missing the most critical starting point of it all. This is the framework we need the conversation of sexual purity to reside in. Purity pledges provides nothing but a misguided framework that I argue does more harm than good.

Thanks again for knocking it out of the ballpark

[Billy Cox]

Dana, thank you so much for your post! My daughter has a purity ring and we went about the same way of presenting it to her. I think a Christian father figure is so important in a daughters life and makes such a difference. I could go on and on about that but I won't here. I think it a beautiful idea, whether it be a purity ring, a keepsake or even a flower that includes a personal talk with them on purity. Anything that is presented to a daughter or son in a deep memorable serious setting really does make an impact on them.

We also did a teen purity study series with the girls in our church: "Wild About You" (http://www.lifeway.com/product/001299971/) last year. Three of us taught it. (women, no men) The study book with this packet, has the looks of a teen magazine that grabs the attention of anyone reading it. The lessons were inside. A short video is played before each lesson that is introduced and then we addressed the study. We added other ideas as we did this series, we did crafts, talked about beauty, also had a tea. At the end, we had a banquet where all the girls were invited and their parents. Some did not have both sets of parents there but it still worked wonderfully. Each parent or sponsor stood and read a letter that they addressed to their (girl) daughter that told what their daughter meant to them and how proud they were of them. Each girl was presented a rose. Some parents also gave necklaces or other gifts. To say the least, there was not a dry eye anywhere in the house. Our pastors wife shared a devotion that was truly touching and appropriate for the whole event. It was a truly blessed time for everyone. Our prayers are that it will always be a wonderful memory that each girl can look back on and be uplifted.

On a personal note I also have to add that when my husband read our letter to our daughter, it was one of the most beautiful experiences I will always cherish.

So, what does your church do for boys?

[Gina Stevenson]

I've often said that instead of impressing upon them the message of waiting, we should have focused on the message of serving.

Nothing says that both could not -- or should not (they should!) -- be done.

I'm familiar with his concepts in I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and I wasn't particularly impressed. It's partly because he emphasizes how group courting should happen, then the man should ask the father's permission to propose to his daughter, and then the happy couple gets married. The problem with that model is 1) You never really get to see what the person is like outside of a group dynamic.

Yes, definitely some folks can be of the Jekyl/Hyde type; having not picked up one of his books in years (have browsed long ago), I can't say whether or not he mentions some time alone, once the couple has decided to explore the possibility of marriage. Would think so.

Interesting is one word to ascribe to it. It's provoked my interest more than once. The reason why is that such couples REALLY have to establish some hard lines of communication concerning sexual expectations once they've got the ring on.

I'll be nice & not say, "Well, duh!" Will say that of course communication is very important ... and the suggestion would be to do more talking about such things than only doing ... especially when they're tempted to do so prior to marriage ... spend that time communicating instead; wouldn't suggest marriage until they could comfortably talk about such things prior thereto.

First, one of the problems is that Christian couples face is sexual guilt once they're married. Yes, now that they're married, they face guilt from just having had sex with their spouse. The last number that I heard was that 80% of Christian women (I don't remember the number for men, but I remember it was a bit lower) feel guilt and shame on or after their honeymoon. Some have continued issues of guilt that lead some time into the marriage. Why is this? It's because for years we pound it into kids "SEX IS BAD!" Through their youth the message is always "Sex is bad, sex is bad, sex is bad." Now we get married and suddenly, "Sex is good!" Human beings cannot switch gears that quickly. So, even though they may cognitively know that sex is a positive and wonderful thing, they haven't changed their emotional reaction and thus still feel some level of guilt and shame for participating in it.

Again, not so sure it's being pounded into their/our heads that sex is bad, necessarily ... there is a difference suggesting the legitimate reasons for waiting for something good and claiming it's all bad. Never did have the "sex is bad" drilled into me that I can recall ... and this was years before the "purity ring ceremonies" were ever tho't of ... but definitely a "wait" mentality was implanted. Not sure who/where you've heard that this "bad, bad, BAD!" is being pounded into kids' brains; it might be more rare than you think?? [I mean, we by no means grew up in an atmosphere where people felt free to talk about much of anything, so that we'd hear the difference between "bad" and "wait for the good" ... yet it somehow came through from whatever sources.]

I'm not sure that there should be the huge expectation that they're going to go from 0 to 60 in one night. I'm not sure that our psyche is set up from going to no sexual contact to sexual intercourse without some emotional repercussions.

No, we might not be set up to go from 0 to 60, as you put it, in one night. But, communicating about such things is part of that "psyching" up ... anticipation is as much a part of an activity/vacation/etc as whatever/wherever it is one is going to be doing/going. If they've "begun" their trip through much honest, open communication, then they're not starting at zero, by any means.

Some of these statements, Mike, sound as if they're to be forbidden from even talking about things that they are not yet doing. Not so.

I have met a number of people who wear purity rings saying, "I'm saving myself for the person I'm going to marry," and seldom have I heard, "I'm saving myself for marriage."

Yes, semantics definitely matter, especially in such an important area as marriage.

Our kids are attacked everyday. For instance, did you know that in some schools being a virgin is not cool and the peer pressure of it is very intense.

Yes, they are; have heard of this. Shoot, they even made fun of us years ago (thinking now of some @ work who liked to talk about their exploits, noticed I wasn't, and learned of my expectations of waiting, and laughed, etc).

The way a father impacts a daughters life is very strong. If he is abusive to his wife or kids the percentage of their children marrying someone that is abusive is high.

Yes, when one comes from an abusive home, they either seem to marry someone similar, or -- scared out of even marrying (as was I for many years) -- wait until they can figure things out ... how not to repeat this travesty.

If the role of the church can also make a teen feel valued and appreciated, loved and contribute to their self esteem and draw them to an even closer commitment to Christ, then I am all for it.

Wanting to talk about being a servant instead of remaining pure for your husband? Both have value and I would talk about them both.

Yes, I'm all for the church standing in for those who don't have this type of affirmation at home ... not in a controlling, intrusive sort of way, but lovingly. And, yes, already stated above, but will repeat ... nothing wrong with (& good for them, too) teaching kids re servanthood.

[Mike Fraley]

It amazes me how all the men in this thread seem to think that purity rings and pledges are not beneficial and yet almost all the women on this thread think it is a neat idea. Maybe we should talk about what happens when a person has premarital sex and the ramifications and guilt that they feel if it happens before marriage.

I'm going make an observation and ask some honest (as in not pointed) questions. The observation is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the post seems to make a few assumptions: 1) Indicating potential problems with a relatively new practice is a wholesale rejection of any benefit (as some men, myself included, have raised questions and concerns without accepting or rejecting the notion 2) Placing lack of value in purity ring/ceremonies is placing a lack of value in sexual integrity, or possibly 3) Lack of valuing the rings and ceremonies is somehow is somehow correlated with premarital sex.

I think that the gender observation is an interesting one. But I'm not sure how we've gotten from your observation to a need to talk about premarital sex. Could you help me out with the connection? It just seems to me that there is perhaps a missing premise in your post, perhaps we could establish what it might be?