Search this blog

colton-dixon-annie-coggeshall-wedding-6People magazine recently published a brief story about Christian singer Colton Dixon. The interview included honeymoon pictures of Colton and his wife, Annie, and explained why the two chose not to have sex until after their wedding.

"I believe sex was designed for marriage," Colton said, explaining that the Bible teaches this idea and that it is "more meaningful to wait."

The article is short, but the comment stream is long. A few commenters applauded the Dixons for living according to their values. But most were harshly critical of the idea that you should wait until you're married to have sex.

I'd like to highlight a few of the comments because they are a good example of cultural antipathy toward Christianity's distinctive sexual ethic. Most of the criticism fell into three main categories.

1. "Sex has no design.” 

When Colton says that sex is designed for marriage, he's implying that there is a Designer - a God to whom we're accountable for our sexual actions. He’s also saying that marriage is the only covenant relationship where sexual expression is supposed to flourish.

Naturally, many disagree with both of those notions. So, some reduced marriage to a "human concept" that was "invented" for tax benefits and passing on your inheritance. Others claimed that marriage has "nothing to do with commitment" and is just "a contract for those who need things in writing." 

2. "Sex has nothing to do with morality."

The next line of criticism focused on the idea that one's sexual behavior has something to do with "good morals."

"Right just means right for the individual," someone wrote. Colton and Annie are no better or worse for waiting until marriage. It's more important to treat other people nicely, to donate to charities, to be a good friend, etc.

Sex is "just a biological urge," so there's nothing wrong with "having sex just for the fun of it" as long as you're being "responsible" and trying to get "experience." If there is any meaning to sex, it is something "created by the couple involved and their relationship and commitment." And if there is a God, he couldn't care less what you do with your reproductive organs.

3. "They are freaks."

The most disturbing line of criticism is that Colton and Annie are "idiots" who have bought into "purity crap" persuasive only to a "few freaks out there." "SO BIZARRE!" one wrote.

Only religious "repression" could "brainwash" people into thinking sex was something more than just pleasure, and only "a moron" would save sex for marriage. The idea is "silly," "freakish," and "against nature."

Who promises to spend their life with someone before knowing if they are sexually compatible? How else can you be sure you've sensed the "spark" that lets you know you've found your "soul mate?"

The Beautiful Craziness of Marriage

As Christians, we should get used to being labeled "freaks" and "morons" and "silly" for our views on sexuality. The idea that sex outside of marriage is sinful draws cultural scorn.

The temptation for the Church is to fire back, to condemn the world and run down a list of biblical "do's" and "don'ts." Instead, if we are to be effective missionaries in this culture, we should try to show why God's design is not only right, but also beautiful.

We can start by trying to understand why our neighbors see reserving sex for marriage as "silly" and "bizarre."

Today, more than half the population lives together before getting married. Many millennials have grown up in broken homes and don't want to repeat the mistakes of their parents. It's understandable that they would think it's healthier to assess one's sexual compatibility before tying the knot.

But the statistics tell a different story: cohabitation is more likely to lead to future divorce. Why is this the case?

Perhaps it's because cohabitation robs a couple of the security of covenantal love. Premarital sex offers your partner one aspect of who you are (your body) while you are still holding on to all of the other aspects of your independence (social, economic, legal). It is a pale imitation of marital love, no matter how pleasurable it may be in the moment.

Tim and Kathy Keller write:

In so many cases, when one person says to another, "I love you," but let's not ruin it by getting married," that person really means, "I don't love you enough to close off all my options. I don't love you enough to give myself to you that thoroughly." To say, "I don’t need a piece of paper to love you" is basically to say, "My love for you has not reached the marriage level."

The Bible upholds sex within marriage because sex is an expression of the covenantal union of husband and wife. Apart from that covenantal promise, sex is diminished, more about one's "performance" than about selfless devotion. When a relationship becomes a “test drive” or a “try out,” both parties ask themselves either "Am I good enough?" or "Am I settling when I should be looking for someone better?"

Even non-Christians are having second thoughts about our current cultural practices. Consider the questions raised by Aziz Ansari, who critiques American millennials for their "exhausting" search for a soul mate. "While we may think we know what we want, we're often wrong," he writes.

Our relationships are fraught with the fear of constant comparison. We wonder if our partners will stay with us as we age, or if they are on Facebook wishing for “what might have been,” or swiping Tinder to see what new options are available. Ansari contrasts this frustrating sift through endless romantic options to his parents' (arranged!) marriage, a relationship where compatibility and love have grown stronger over time.


Colton and Annie Dixon went against the flow. They were rebels in a world where sex before marriage is normal and expected.

They chose to give themselves to each other fully only after they had made the vow that encompasses and protects the beautiful vulnerability of their marital love. That’s one way they show their marriage is much more than a contract. It's a covenant designed to inflame and sustain their sexual union - "till death do they part."

View Comments


3 thoughts on “Colton Dixon and the “Craziness” of Saving Sex for Marriage”

  1. Vicki Krebs says:

    Thank you for this article! You are giving an excellent example of worldview evangelism. When a Christian worldview clashes with the perspective of an unbeliever, an evangelistic opportunity is revealed. Instead of being defensive, we should graciously explain the beauty of covenant love both in marriage and in our union with Christ. As we live in relationship with unbelieving friends, our marriages can reveal the union of spirit, emotion, mind and body in a way that stirs their desire for something more. We do not need to give them rules or a formula from some book we have read! We need to give them Jesus.

  2. Philmonomer says:

    But the statistics tell a different story: cohabitation is more likely to lead to future divorce. Why is this the case?

    It isn’t clear that this is true. A study that came out in 2014 explicitly said that it was not:

    In any case, there is a very real problem of correlation and causation here (assuming that people who co-habitat prior to marriage are in fact more likely to get divorced). I don’t think anyone has established that co-habitation is causally related to the divorce–that is, there is something in co-habitating prior to marriage that then subsequently leads to higher rates of divorce.

    Rather, what seems much, much more likely to me is that people who have the mentality that co-habitation is ok are also more likely to have the mentality that divorce is ok. But that doesn’t mean that co-habitation had anything to do with the higher divorce rates of those people (again, assuming that they do in fact have higher divorce rates, which I doubt.).

    1. Casey says:

      I agree with the commenter who noted the studies don’t show causation (though I’d like to see you try to create the experiment where people are randomly assigned to cohabitation or not!). But I think the Biblical pattern is clear (God’s laws as protection because He loves us and wants what is best for us and others, us stepping outside those laws and pain resulting) and the correlation supports (not proves) what is put forth in the Bible. In the broader sense, many of us have tested that hypothesis over and over (that living as God outlines is better than living based on my feelings at a particular moment) and discovered it to be true, whether or not we can follow a direct line of causation of how those bad choices led to heartbreak (though it seems usually we can, at least on an anecdotal/personal level). PS hooray for the Gospel that saves us from the body of death that we all create for ourselves!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books