Introduction

Hook-up culture is now a problem in the evangelical church, which has high rates of fornication. Men expect sex after two or three dates and too many women comply. Sexual confusion is inherited from the sexual revolution, powered by unrestrained sex drives, stimulated by pornography, and justified by the imprecise patter of self-delusional rationalizations. Consider six ways Christians rationalize fornication.

Rationalizations

First, the happy argument

The Rationalization

God wants us to be happy. Sex makes us happy. Therefore God wants us to have sex.

The Rebuttal

Happiness is far more concrete than the soft and flabby idea of “happiness” that moderns have. In our day, people think happiness is satisfying carnal pleasures, flattering comfort, and injecting endless entertainment into their eyeballs. The mistake is to assume that happiness is separate from ethical categories. The world defines happiness as “feeling physical pleasure.” The Bible defines happiness as “being righteous.” Holiness and happiness are not contrasts. Richard Baxter said that fornication is two people encouraging sin in each other. Biblical happiness never supports sin and holiness is never an obstacle to happiness.

Happiness isn’t when you surrender to your lusts. The more pre-marital sexual partners one has, the less likely they are to stay married. The more pre-marital sexual partners one has, the more likely out-of-wedlock pregnancy is to occur. Happiness exists in the work of virtue by cultivating habits of restraint rather than living as a pawn to the appetite. When there is no restraint, men see women as the means for their lust. When this happens, men are not in control; they are being controlled. A man makes himself an animal by forgetting the reverence due to a woman. She is a person with a spiritual and emotional side. She is not an instrument for satisfying his desire.[1]

Second, the celeb argument

The Rationalization

There are high-profile Christians who openly live together. It must be okay.

The Rebuttal

It’s a mistake to look to famous people for moral standards. Our theological authority is the Holy Scriptures—the inerrant infallible word of God—not the opinion of celebrities, athletes, or geniuses. The sole determining authority is Sola Scriptura. Just because Chris Pratt professes to be a Christian while simultaneously living with his girlfriend doesn’t make it right.

“Okay,” the rationalization continues, “In the Bible, David and other biblical figures fornicated.” This, of course, is true, and David was judged for his sin. Second Samuel 10-24 presents David under a curse because of his deceit, betrayal, murder, lust, and adultery. The consequence is that the sword will never depart from his house, traitors will arise, and trouble will be national and public (2 Sam. 12:10-12). David confesses his sin (2 Sam. 12:13; Ps. 51) and God forgives him (2 Sam. 12:13), but there are still heavy consequences for David (2 Sam. 12:14) that are worked out in 2 Samuel 13-20.

A culture that has lost the virtue of restraint has lots of cheap sex. Cheapened sex means people are under punishment. The instrumentalist view of sex is when the person is seen as a tool or instrument to someone else’s self-centered ends.[2] This is what happened with David and Bathsheba. Since the development of the pill, sexual restraint is not seen as the higher good. High-profile Christians who live by the ethics of the sexual revolution are not honoring the Lord.

Third, the no-judgment argument

The Rationalization

Don’t judge me.

The Rebuttal

Jesus is not into soppy self-esteem. Matthew 7:1—“Judge not, that you be not judged”—doesn’t remove moral regulations. Neither does it forbid Christians from making moral judgments. How would we obey Matthew 7:6—“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs”—without making a judgment about who are a dog and a pig? How would we obey Matthew 7:15 without making a judgment about false prophets? In fact, how can one person judge another for judging if judging isn’t allowed? Matthew 7:2-5 goes on to explain that we cannot apply one standard of judgment to another and think we can escape the standard applied to us. Or as Romans 14:1-10 teaches, you must remember God’s judgment before you judge.

So, in application to fornication, Matthew 7:1-5 means that an unrepentant fornicator is not the best person to call a fornicator to repentance. Only the person who follows the standard himself can help his brother follow the standard. So, it is wrong to absolutize non-judgment. How will we judge those “inside the church” if we can never judge (1 Cor. 5:12)?

God’s people are not to assume the place of God and render final condemnation. The judgment of eternal life and death is the final verdict of Heaven or Hell. We are to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God. We don’t judge as God does; it is true. But Christians must make clarifying moral judgments in obedience to the word of God.  

Fourth, the consent argument

The Rationalization

It’s not wrong if both people consent.

The Rebuttal

In the sexual revolution, the only guiding moral principle is consent. Consent means you can do it if you want to, which means lust is the only moral boundary. What kind of picture does the principle of consent draw? It’s a picture where the line of autonomous free choice sets the edge for what is right and wrong. Now, Christians agree that in sexual matters, consent is crucial. For example, a healthy marriage depends upon the free choice of each party to give conjugal rights (1 Cor. 7:1-4). But consent is not the only value. Consent says the highest meaning of sex is that it’s not rape. This is a paltry platform upon which to build an entire sexual ethic.

Christians understand that the code of covenant, rather than consent, is the foundation for God-honoring sex. Sex is not merely a bodily activity. It is a union of persons. When consent is the only standard, the body and the self are separated, the body is objectified, and the person is reduced to choice.[3]

Fifth, the “I have to” argument

The Rationalization

If I don’t sleep with him, he will break up with me.

The Rebuttal

If a woman is worried that her boyfriend will break up with her because she won’t fornicate, then she needs to find a new man. Certainly, the man can recognize the wrong, confess, and repent, in which case he may be worth keeping.

What should a woman look for in a husband? Since a wife’s role is to submit to (Eph. 5:22) and respect her husband (Eph. 5:33), she needs to find a man she can respect. Since the husband’s role is to love his wife sacrificially (Eph. 5:25), she needs to find a man who will give love rather than anger (Eph. 5:29). Subordination is part of the structure of respect. The husband’s job is to lead (Eph. 5:23-24) his wife. Lead her where? Into increased righteousness (Eph. 5:26-27) rather than into sin. If a boyfriend unrepentantly pressures his girlfriend to fornicate, he has failed the interview for the job of husband.

Sixth, the questioning argument

The Rationalization

How far is too far?

The Rebuttal

This question is in search of a loophole. In Matthew 5:33-34, the Pharisees thought they had found a loophole. Instead of taking an oath in God’s name, they took oaths in the name of heaven. They were trying to find loopholes, so Jesus tells them, don’t take an oath by heaven, or by the earth, or by your head (Mt. 5:34b-35).

When the Christian dating couple asks, “How far is too far,” they are looking for a loophole, just like the Pharisees. “How much can we get away with?” That is the wrong sort of question. It implies that God is restricting your joy, when in fact the standards of Jesus Christ lead to your good. Righteous living will never happen when your starting point is: How much can we get away with? Will anybody find out? What loophole can I exploit? Can I do this and then plead ignorance?

Conclusion

These aren’t just rationalizations, but battle lines being drawn for the soul of the church. The underlying desire for rationalizing fornication is to escape the authority of God. The underlying assumption is that God’s benevolent law is overbearing tyranny. This is a vacuous vision of moral reality that hollows out the gospel.

The holiness of God is the fornicator’s only true hope. Christ on the cross is not only the sin-crusher and the lust-leveler, he is the disclosure of the moral will of God. It is a part of God’s holiness to rescue those who are unholy. This is where the character of God burns brightest. This is where the brilliance of the glory of the grace of God defeats sin, invites faith, gives the Spirit, and makes new creatures. This is how truth catches fire in the imagination of his people and laughs at the gathering storm of sin’s rationalizations.

[1] Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 105-114.

[2] Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 107.

[3] Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 59, 107f.