by
Viola Larson
The Office of Women’s Advocacy, while celebrating Women’s History month,
placed an article on their web site entitled, ‘Recognize the threat of
raunch culture.”’ Voices of Orthodox Women were concerned because the
article was written strictly from a feminist point of view and offered only
a choice between women’s right to choose their own lifestyle or raunch
culture.
As the article was written it was in defiance of a resolution of the 217th
General Assembly. The resolution states with amendment: *’*The Presbytery of
Shenango overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to direct the General
Assembly Council (Congregational Ministries Division) and all other PC(USA)
entities to use the biblical and confessional teachings that sexual
relationships belong only within the bond of marriage of a man and a woman
as the standard for the development of any future materials or
recommendations for materialsin print or in its website. [The curriculum
should include information on reproductive health to allow for an open
discussion between teachers and youth in light of our understanding of God’s
plan for sexuality.]” This resolution can be found at:
http://72.54.6.218/Business/Business.aspx?iid=157.
Not only was the biblical imperative to live a holy life missing in the
original article, the biblical offer of grace, forgiveness, comfort and
keeping strength for girls, young women and women was missing. After VOW
wrote an article and appealed to Ms Molly Casteel, Women’s Advocacy
Associate, and Ms Rhashell Hunter, Director of Racial Ethnic & Women’s
Ministries/ PW, the author(s) of the article changed some of its content.
Thankfully the author(s) removed the links to both the article on the sexual
revolution in Wikipedia and the one on raunch culture in Newsweek. One of
the important changes to the article is the heading above it. That is Romans
12:2 ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing
of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God What is good
and acceptable and perfect.”
The original piece had an introduction on another page, which it still has,
stating, ‘This week we will note key differences between the sexual
revolution of late and the exploding phenomenon of raunchy culture [1] ;
they now have added under their heading a quote from the minutes of the 1971
General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, taken from a Task Force
on Women, which seems to change or perhaps better explain some of the
meaning of their wording.
The last paragraph in the quote from the 1971 General Assembly states, ‘The
Church must encourage its members to accept their sexuality and celebrate it
in meaningful, creative, and responsible relationships.” The author/s of
raunch culture remark after this, ‘As this quote indicates, the Church, like
feminism, has challenged customs circumscribing a women’s right to seek
personal fulfillment. This aspect of feminism was infamously construed as a
woman’s ability to express her sexuality and the corollary sexual
revolution’.”
This is still very vague without any clear statement that a Christian’s
sexual activity must be within biblical perimeters. (And this is, after all,
an article about sexuality and sex.) Also laying out the differences between
the sexual revolution and contemporary raunch sex the author/s write, ‘The
sexual revolution was a countercultural assertion of sexuality by women.
Raunch culture, on the other hand, is the overt sexualization of young women
by popular culture.” (Bold letters author(s)’)
If the earlier quote from the General Assembly of 1971 is not about ‘a
woman’s ability to express her sexuality and the corollary sexual
revolution,”’ which it undoubtedly wasn’t, it seems to me it is unnecessary
to continue pushing the difference between contemporary raunch culture and
the sexual revolution of the seventies, particularly since the 1970’s sexual
revolution was a part of the rising wave of secular radical feminism which
was advocated in and out of the Church.
Speaking of the Church, the author(s) write that young women ‘need to be
supported in their expanding visions of womanhood.” They need ‘examples of
femininity not conformed to worldly expectations.” There is hope that they,
with the Church’s help, will ’embrace the most radical and countercultural
idea of womanhood possible; they will hear and see what it means and
requires to be a woman of God.” This still fails significantly to hold up
the biblical understanding of holiness for both young women and young men
against an encroaching culture of both raunchiness and sexual
permissiveness.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to
present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which
is your spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1)