Youth, Abstinence, and the One-Flesh Union

Paul A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University
Deerfield, Illinois

This article discusses the biblical concept of the one-flesh union, recent research findings on sexuality among Christian youth, and ways to foster abstinence.

Introduction
The One-Flesh Union
Fostering Abstinence

To What Extent Does Guilt Prevent More Sexual Activity?
To What Extent Does Religion Affect You?
Do You Want to Marry a Virgin?
How Much is your Sexual Behavior Influenced by Parents’ Thinking?
What is the Marital Status of Your Parents?
Do Youth Who Have Masturbated Engage in More Sexual Behaviors Than Youth Who Have Not Masturbated?
Do Christian College Youth Behave Similarly to Secular College Youth?

Reflections
References

Readers of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (2002). Youth, Abstinence and the One-Flesh Union.  Paper presented at the  American Association of Christian Counselors 2002 Super Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 24-26, 2002.  Internet resource available at URL: <http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/AACC_Paper.htm > (last updated March 07, 2009).  Copyright © 2004 Paul A. Twelker.  The current version of the paper presents a completely updated statistical analysis that includes gender as an explanatory variable.

Introduction

Today’s youth receive conflicting messages about sex from the culture and from the Church. The culture presents mixed messages ranging from outright hedonistic expression to cautious exploration to abstinence. The Church is more consistent--it preaches that premarital sexual intercourse is forbidden.  However, this message is falling on deaf ears for a significant proportion of the Church’s young people.  To make matters worse, youth are asked to make ethical choices using a legalistic rule book rather than using Biblical principles. One variation is the "Just say no" rule as it is applied to sexual intercourse before marriage. This mandate falls short in that it fails to tell youth what they can say Yes to. While keeping vaginal intercourse off limits, young people test the limits of the rule by any means imaginable to the point that oral sex (and most other sexual expressions) become permissible, at least in their eyes, since virginity, at least technically, is retained. To makes matters even more interesting, the Church’s prohibition against sexual intercourse and many other forms of interpersonal sexual expression (in the general category called "petting") is often coupled with the prohibition against solitary sex (self-pleasuring or masturbation). In essence, from many youth’s point of view, the Church becomes practically irrelevant in their struggles with finding sexual identity and finding permissible ways of relieving sexual tension.

My intentions are to discuss two topics: first, the theology of the one-flesh union concept and its importance, and second, the implications of recent research on the fostering of abstinence.  I have addressed the first topic in previous AACC conferences.  However, this is the first time I have discussed findings from fifteen years of data collection from Christian college youth on sexual attitudes and behaviors. This paper examines the sexual behaviors of youth as they relate to a number of explanatory variables.  A related paper examines the sexual attitudes of college youth (Twelker, 2003).  It is my hope and prayer that this discussion will stimulate your thinking and help sharpen your counseling strategies in significant ways as you seek God's way in your ministry.   

The collection of data on the sexual attitudes and behaviors of students at a midwestern Christian college began in 1986 and extended to the present.  Students in an annual Human Sexuality class were invited to participate in the survey, the same one used by Coles and Stokes (1985).  Completed surveys were obtained from 164 males and 189 females (mean age = 20.65 years).  Since this represents a convenience sample of youth that self-selected themselves into a somewhat unique course, inferences to the general college population or the Christian college population at large, especially regarding the marginal percentages, must be made with a great deal of caution.  However, the relationships between variables reported below are probably more representational of what might be found within the larger Christian college community.

The One-Flesh Union

From my perspective, one major problem with the Church's message is that it does not help youth understand the difference between the one-flesh union and marriage. The Church preaches that sex before marriage is sinful while sex after marriage is sanctified. Very few youth (and, for that matter, adults), understand the concept that while marriage is established by vow following mutual consent, the one-flesh union is established by sexual intercourse, given that certain conditions are met.  

The One-Flesh Union Requires That Conditions Be Met.  The conditions of an authentic union blessed by God require that two individuals of different genders love each other, and act freely, deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge of the community as they leave their parents and cleave to each other in permanent unconditional commitment and loyalty (cf., (Bailey, 1952; Piper, 1960).  Little do youth realize that in their first act of intercourse, they pass through a one-way gate that creates a permanent condition that cannot be reversed whether the couple intended to establish the union or not.  Ideally, the one-flesh union should be established when the couple are financially and emotionally ready to develop an autonomous family unit where the procreation of offspring will be one  symbol of the union.  Individuals must order their lives so that they establish an authentic one-flesh union blessed by God once in their life (unless widowed) (cf., Twelker, 1998). It is clear from scripture that the sexual act is binding, joining (in the sense of cementing) two people together into a union indissoluble except by death. The words "cleave" or "join" come from the Greek word proskollao, which has the meaning of "glue upon", "glue to", "to join one's self to closely", "stick to", "yoke" or "cement to".  Ideally, this one-flesh union will be established after a marriage ceremony where witnesses come to celebrate with the couple, to pledge their continual support and encouragement of the couple in maintaining their fidelity, and to draw attention to the sanctity of the marriage covenant. 

The One-Flesh Union Permanently Changes the Partners.  As the Church deals with its youth, its clear message must be simply this: the process of sexual intercourse is considered so important by God that to engage in it produces an inevitable string of consequences in each individual that permanently and mysteriously changes their souls, their psyches and their priorities. Donald Joy (1986) states the case this way:

Sexual intimacy has been designed by God to be the ultimate disclosure of ourselves to the other, naked and unashamed. It is the act God accepts as a sign that the couple are totally committed to each other and transfer complete ownership of everything one is and hopes to be into the hands of the other. Since our sexual identity is at the core of our being…we can only fuse it with one other exclusive being to form one whole human: the one-flesh union which we protect in every society with public marriage.

The One-Flesh Union Comes in Two Forms.   The authentic union is blessed by God and may coexistent with the believer’s union with Christ. As I previously stated, but deliberately reiterate here, the authentic union is established by sexual intercourse following consent when a couple (two persons of different genders) who love each other and act freely, deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge of the community, leave their parents and cleave to each other in permanent, unconditional commitment, loyalty and fidelity. The counterfeit or alien union is not blessed by God and carries with it none of the beautiful gifts given with the blessing of God, including the energy and power and grace afforded by Almighty God to hold the bond together. It is inconsistent with the union with Christ and in fact jeopardizes¹ any perceived union with Christ (Rom. 7: 4; I Cor. 6: 9-20; II Cor. 11 1-2; I Tim. 1: 18-19). Further, the alien union (in the absence of repentance and forgiveness) jeopardizes a subsequent one-flesh union that may be thought to be authentic by the partners. The alien union is established whenever a couple have sexual intercourse but are unable or unwilling to leave parents and cleave to each other in permanent commitment, fidelity and loyalty. It is established when sexual intercourse is engaged in as a recreational pursuit or as a way to fulfill individual needs or desires without the intent of bonding permanently. These needs or desires include using sex as a substitute for emotional needs, refusing to refrain from sex because of insufficient ego strength, using sex to control or coerce a partner, or using sex to provide sexual pleasure alone (Balswick and Balswick, 1999). It is also established when mercenary acts of fornication or adultery are involved and when persons of the same gender are sexually bonded, with or without emotional bonding.  In summary, the establishment of counterfeit unions does irreparable harm to a person’s ability to form deep, lifelong committed relationships.  

In my research, it was revealed that about two-thirds of the youth were going together at first intercourse (see Table 1).  Twenty-eight percent said that they were friends. However, there was a statistically significant gender difference.  The percentage of males that said they were friends was about four times higher than that for females.  And more females said they were engaged than males (χ²=19.45, p<.001).  Note that I have shown the  percentages that differ most significantly from chance in bold-face to help clarify the interpretations. 

Table 1.  The Relationship of Relation with Person at First Intercourse with Gender

It was revealed that about one-third of youth who had sexual intercourse found the bond with their partner subsequently weakened while about one-third saw no change. Only 34.3% said that their feelings grew stronger (See Table 2).  There were no gender differences detected (χ²=.207, p=.902).  Little wonder.  Over forty-one percent of these youth did not love their last sexual partner, and marriage was seemingly the furthest thing from their mind (See Table 3).  Again, there were no statistically significant gender differences detected (χ²=3.14, p=.076).  Forty-three percent thought they would marry their last sexual partner (See Table 4).  The gender differences are not statistically significant (χ²=1.64, p=.201).  

Table 2.  The Relationship of Change in Relationship After Intercourse to Gender

Table 3.  The Relationship of Love of Last Intercourse Partner to Gender

Table 4.  The Relationship of Expectation of Marriage to Gender

Another thing.  As shown by Table 5, almost 29% of these youth, at one time or another, had multiple relationships going at the same time.  The males were twice as likely to be in multiple relationships (χ²= 7.04, p=.008).  

Table 5.  The Relationship of Multiple Relationships to Gender 

Further, as shown by Table 6, 27.3% of these same respondents reported that they were sorry they had intercourse while 48.7% said that they had both positive and negative feelings about having intercourse. Only 24% said they were glad after intercourse,  However, there was a gender difference.  More males than females reported they were glad (χ²=6.51, p=.039).  These data are consistent with a recent study by Glenn and Marquardt (2001)  that reported the following feelings of women a day or after "hooking up", a term used to connote distinctive sex-without-commitment interaction between college men and women: desirable, 62%; adventuresome, 52%; triumphant, 18%; awkward, 64%; confused, 57%; disappointed, 44%; empty, 27%; and exploited, 23%.  The authors concluded that hooking up is an activity that women sometimes find rewarding but more often find confusing, hurtful and awkward. 

Table 6.  The Relationship of Feelings After First Intercourse to Gender

In the Glenn and Marquardt report, three dominant themes emerged when the authors asked why women in particular hook up. First, women try to avoid the hurt and rejection that can come talking openly about feelings.  Second, women try to avoid getting into a relationship that can consume large amounts of time.  And finally, women try to avoid the pain of breaking up by avoiding commitment in the first place.  They conclude by saying that "at a minimum, hook ups do not appear to help young people in a critical life task, which is learning to form and sustain mature relationships."

There are several more tables of interest.  Table 7 shows that about 46 percent of the youth did not talk with their partners about their first intercourse.  For these youth, the usual report is that they simply got swept up in the passion of the moment.  These data help explain the ambivalent feelings after intercourse.

Table 7.  The Relationship of Talking About First Intercourse With Partner to Gender

Table 8 reveals that of those youth who reported that they had sexual intercourse, 14 percent said that either they or their partner became pregnant.  Sex differences were not statistically significant (χ²=.253, p = .615).

Table 8.  The Relationship Between Gender and Reports of Pregnancy

Table 9 shows that of those youth who reported that they had sexual intercourse, 18 percent said that either they or their partner had an abortion.  There were no statistically significant sex differences (χ²=.269, p = .604).  In an effort to determine whether the abortions were linked to those reporting pregnancies, a follow-up analysis was completed.  Table 10 provides a similar crosstabulation as Table 9, except that the subjects were limited to those who reported that a pregnancy had occurred as a result of sexual intercourse.  It was found that 55 percent of the youth who reported pregnancies (either themselves or a partner), had an abortion (either themselves or a partner).  Sex differences were not significant (χ²=.903, p = .342).  When only females who were pregnant were selected, the percentage having abortions rises to 67 percent.   It should be noted that the way the question was worded left open the possibility that some of the pregnancies or abortions could have occurred outside of the population identified (the human sexuality class).  Additionally, there was the remote possibility of double-counting in the case of male responses.  That is, their partner could have been in the population sampled.

Table 9.  The Relationship Between Gender and Reports of Abortions  

Table 10. The Relationship of Gender and Reports of Abortions Among Students Who Reported Pregnancies

In theory, all sexual expressions in an authentic one-flesh union would serve to strengthen the union and promote positive emotions.  These youth should realize that every expression of sex in one way or another affects the human immune system. Sexual expressions within an authentic one-flesh union serve to strength the immune system while sexual expressions tainted by feelings of stress, guilt, anxiety, fear, and anger serve to diminish or weaken the immune system (Pearsall, 1995). This is consistent with the Neuman Systems Model, which includes five interacting core dimensions: spiritual, physical/physiological, psychological, socio-cultural and developmental (Neuman & Fawcett, 2002).  According to Neuman, the spiritual factor has the strongest influence on health and wellness.  The model also suggests that intrapersonal stressors that occur within person, (e.g. emotions and feelings, conflicts and contradictions within the self), interpersonal stressors that occur between individuals (e.g. role expectations) and extrapersonal stressors that occur in the internal environment (e.g., job or finance pressures ) all serve to weaken the immune system.  A weakened immune system has been implicated in a host of diseases from colds to cancer.  No wonder the Apostle Paul stated that no other sin so clearly affects the body as sexual sin (I Cor. 6: 15-20).  

Regardless of whether the union is authentic or counterfeit, both are permanent.  However, the permanence of the counterfeit union cannot result from God's blessing since it is withheld, so the permanence results from the sexual and emotional bonding that affects the couple in all aspects of their personhood, and is carried through to other subsequent relationships. Although this union cannot be dissolved completely, it definitely can be forgiven upon the believer’s meaningful confession and genuine repentance. It must be stressed that although forgiveness takes care of the sin involved, and makes the person right before God, it usually lacks the efficacy to immediately and completely transform or negate the consequences of the union. Although time, therapy, and the practice of Christian disciples can help reduce the consequences, the union remains with the person and may possess the potential of disrupting a subsequent union (authentic or counterfeit).  

The problem is that sin has physical and mental consequences regardless of the righteousness imputed to the believer on the basis of Christ’s work on the Cross. What are these consequences? For starters, recreational sex may cause the other partner to engage in behaviors they feel are wrong (I Cor. 8). One or both partners may have motives that are tantamount to using the other person for personal gratification. They may engage in intercourse as a means of using power to control the other partner. Many young people sin when they engage in intimate sexual expressions for reasons that are largely non-sexual. Dishonesty, deceit, coercive manipulation, control, and unfaithfulness are just a few problems involved in inappropriate sexual expression. Further, they may be endangering the other partner by exposing them to sexually transmitted diseases, a very unloving (and hence sinful) act. Many teens (and preteens) regret having recreational sex and eventually find it hard to forgive themselves. Some suffer guilt and shame, which is carried into adulthood in the form of self-punishment for their past mistakes. Many are not able to allow themselves to enjoy sex. Some will experience difficulty in establishing intimate and committed relationships because they compartmentalize sex and love (Kuriansky, 1995).  Many of these physical and mental consequences are difficult to rectify since the one-flesh union is a bond that affects all aspects of personhood. Memories of these sexual liaisons may be difficult or impossible to eradicate, and they may haunt the individuals for the rest of their lives.  

For those who have been scarred by sin, it would be well to heed the words of Leroy Forlines (2001) when he states:

We have a message of hope for those whose lives have been ruined by sin.  God is not only in the business of forgiving sin, He is also in the business of changing lives. I do not have an oversimplified view of what this involves, but I refuse to believe that there are lives too complicated to be transformed by the grace of God (pg. 249)

The One-Flesh Union Represents a Covenant Relationship.  In the fifth chapter of Ephesians, we see that the one-flesh union bond between man and wife is symbolic of the covenant relationship between Christ and His Church.

’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Murphy (2000) provides the rationale:

Even though intercourse is what initializes the act of becoming one, it is God that does the joining through this act. Intercourse is simply the catalyst, since the joining is an act of God and not an act of man, though man chooses whom he joins himself with and is therefore held responsible for the covenant he forms through this act. This act of God in making the couple one in conjunction with man's physical act is part of the "mystery" of the one flesh relationship referred to in Ephesians 5:32. We cannot explain exactly what takes place in the spiritual realm as a result of the sexual act. It remains a mystery, just as our oneness with Christ as a result of His death and resurrection remains a mystery.

Covenant relationships date as far back as Adam and Eve, and involved the shedding of blood as a symbol of the establishment of the covenant (Exodus 24:3-8). The ultimate covenant relationship is exemplified by the union between Christ and His Church made possible by the shed blood on the cross (I Peter 1:19). 

In Hebrew, the root of the word for covenant, berith, literally means "a cut where blood flows". The purpose was to create the ultimate binding agreement, where two parties dedicate themselves to granting to each other at all times loyalty, fidelity, protection, promotion and prosperity--with no escape clause. To break the covenant would mean death. One ritual involved the cutting of an arm and the mingling of the blood of each individual. Each individual would treat the wound in such a way that a scar would remain, thus giving public evidence that a blood covenant was entered into. Since the covenant was binding, there was a period of planning that preceded the making of the covenant, usually one year.

A second blood covenant ritual involved cutting or dividing animals in two. The carcasses would then be used to create a pathway of blood that the individuals would walk through in their bare feet twice (cf., Jer. 34; Gen. 15). The first walk symbolized death--the individual had died, his former identity had ended, and all his possessions previously agreed upon now belonged to the other. The second walk symbolized a new birth and a new agreed upon identity. The seriousness of the blood covenant cannot be emphasized enough!

In Deuteronomy 22, we see the significance of the shedding of blood during the couple’s first occasion of sexual intercourse. If blood was not shed by the breaking of the hymen, as evidenced by an examination of the "tokens of virginity," the penalty was death by stoning since it was assumed that she was not a virgin and could not participate in the sealing of the covenant. Blood was part of the establishment of the covenant between a man and a woman, and this is symbolic of the blood of Christ that establishes the new covenant with us (McGrath, 2000).

Murphy states the case this way:

Sexual intercourse is a covenant activity. [In] the covenant ceremony...the two parties entering into covenant cut themselves and mingled their blood. When a woman loses her virginity she bleeds. This blood goes onto the man's penis. The man is in her blood, with her flesh on either side of him, just as the parties entering into covenant.

Each time that couple comes together again in sex, they are reenacting their covenant. It should stand as a constant reminder to them of the terms of that covenant, just as partaking of communion stands as a reminder of our covenant with Jesus (Murphy, 2000).

In summary, the one-flesh union is a type of blood covenant, where each individual dedicate themselves to granting to each other at all times and for the duration of their lives, loyalty, fidelity, protection, promotion and prosperity. The result of breaking the covenant would involve death, because of the seriousness of this bond.  Individuals who entered into this covenant revealed that they were no longer children, ruled by impulses and egocentric motives, but adults, ruled by reason and responsibility. They were ready to assume the responsibilities for co-establishing a new family in the community.

For both the man and the woman, the desire to be bound together in covenant relationship is programmed into human nature. It is part of our being made in God’s image--God too is a covenant planner and covenant maker. This inborn desire for being in covenant is the largely unrecognized part of what we call the sexual drive. When individuals purposely make light of the decision to lose their virginity, they are essentially jeopardizing not only their ability to form deep relationships, they distort their ability to plan, make and keep a covenant. Covenant-keeping involves loyalty, fidelity, protection, promotion and prosperity directed toward the other--with no escape clause. Little wonder individuals who have multiple marriages find it difficult to keep commitments!

Continued

Footnote

¹ The term jeopardizes is a strong word and is used purposely to indicate the seriousness of the situation in my way of thinking.  Leroy Forlines (2001) states the case in this way:

Sin has introduced a foreign element into man's being.  Man was made for righteousness.  He was not made for sin.  A human being can never live in sin and have self-acceptance and full harmony with being.  Sin has placed man in conflict, contradiction, and confusion.  Sin puts a person at cross purposes with the image of God within from which there is no escape.  To whatever extent a person has forfeited the morality of the Ten Commandments, to that extent, he or she is in trouble--not only with God but with himself or herself...The image of God within can be neglected, but not without a high cost.

And what is this high cost?  Forlines indicates that this sort of tampering with sin can lead to a spirit of defeat that in turn can place a person under discipline from God.  The danger here is that the wayward Christian may come to a turning point that leads either to repentance or to forsaking God altogether.  The consequence of forsaking God means that the individual turns from the faith and in  the Apostle Paul's words, makes a shipwreck of faith (I Tim 1: 18-19).  

The context of the letter to the Corinthian church is probably referring to temple prostitution, where the act of sexual intercourse with the prostitute was tantamount to establishing a covenantal one-flesh pact with the Devil.  Obviously, such a covenant could not coexist with a union with Christ.  Although it could be argued that recreational sex is far removed from temple prostitution, I would argue that there is little if any difference.  Both recreational sex and temple prostitution meet the conditions for the forming of an alien union, and it makes little difference where the sex takes place.  It should be emphasized that the sin involved in the counterfeit union does not cause a person to lose their faith.  The danger, as Forlines points out, is that the person may eventually forfeit their faith through unbelief and a permanent turning from God.  Staunch Calvinists who believe the "once saved, always saved" doctrine will of course consider this suggestion an affront to their theology.  To my Calvinist friends, I would simply point out that regardless of our disagreement on the eternal destiny of the individual, it has to be recognized that the counterfeit union comes with a high cost with respect to our relationship with God, with others, and with ourselves. 

Return to text

Contact the Author