Can it be?
Can it really be? Did Ken actually write an article that made perfect sense? It’s true people. Ken just published this article about a newlywed game hosted by Bishop Weeks. After just reading the title, I thought to myself, “here we go. Another pop shot at some poor church who probably was just having some fun together.” But this video was actually too much for even my emerging theology. It’s one thing to talk about sex and another thing to have unnecessary graphic language in a community of Christ followers. Our church recently did a “couple’s game” before a gathering based on healthy relationships. It was clean, alot of fun and didn’t cross any lines.
While I believe that the open discussion about sex in our communities of faith is not just healthy, but long overdue, I also realize there are limits. This game show pushed the line way too far. So, I must say congratulations to Ken for writing an article that was fair, well written and actually spoke the truth.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
You guys are so judgmental! I mean, they talked about body parts, cmon get off it! Are you passing judgment against this church?
Oh wait a second, is CRN.info admitting that a line has to be drawn somewhere? I am glad that this article seemed to coincide with your arbitrary standard of morality. I mean, if goes further than even you would go, then cleary it is wrong.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
You know I wrote that last comment in haste. Its tone was not appropriate; forgive me.
I really wanted to say that this just goes to show that everyone draws a line…
July 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
no one has ever said that there isn’t a line. The problem comes when the line is drawn at hymns, pews and calvinism
July 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“While I believe that the open discussion about sex in our communities of faith is not just healthy, but long overdue”
What Scripture will you use, Nathan? The New Testament teaches “the marriage bed is undefiled”, anything else is opinion. Our preoccupation with sex is cultural, not Biblical. God din’t give details, so before the populace knew how to read they came with Creator installed instincts. They worked, we are still here!
It’s not rocket science unless you make comparative guidelines based upon the performance of others.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
It is very common to hear the following statement. Now think very carefully about what it actually means when someone says:
“I like [whatever it might be]. It’s really good.”
July 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Nathan,
Wait, didn’t you just arbitrate once again where the line should be drawn? What’s wrong with drawing the line at hymns, pews, and calvinism (which of course Ken has repeatedly said that he is not a calvinist)? Everyone draws it somewhere…there is a line to this thing called “doing church.” Even you admit, there is a right way and a wrong way. Your response to the newly wed game clip demonstrated to me that you believe there is a line. So I ask you, is it arbitrary? or is it based on some authority?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I’d say it was still over the top in its use of the strongest of superlatives.
It’s one thing to say,
“wow, I didn’t know churches were going this far. Perhaps they should reevaluate what they consider appropriate speech in mixed company. that truly offended me.”
It’s quite another thing to say:
“I post this video so people can be warned away from these fakes who sadly if they do not stop this disgusting false teaching and repent, are going to burn for their introduction of such horrible carnality into the church and will take thousands of ignorant souls with them.”
Words like “carnality”, “disgusting”, “false teaching”, “going to burn”, “ignorant souls”, and “fakes” are all well and good, if it can be demonstrated rationally and with a cool head, that the words are legitimate descriptions of the people in question.
But when such statements are made declaratively without even a single verse of scripture that clearly supports the assertions, it starts reminding me of the cover of the National Inquirer. Lots of over the top language, plenty of emotion, and little substance. It appeals to our abstract “intuition” by assuming that all who hear it will naturally be just as outraged as they were. and if by chance we are not as outraged, it is yet another sign of the apostate state of the modern evangelical church. If only we were living in the good ol’ days. Take your pick: shame or Bible. We can only live by one standard.
Sorry. Not impressed.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Hymns and pews, OK, but Calvinism…I don’t think so.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Nate,
“Words like “carnalityâ€, “disgustingâ€, “false teachingâ€, “going to burnâ€, “ignorant soulsâ€, and “fakes†are all well and good, if it can be demonstrated rationally and with a cool head, that the words are legitimate descriptions of the people in question.”
Can it not be demonstrated rationally that making jokes about the female reproductive organ in a mixed group is a show of carnality?
Can it not be demonstrated rationally that such discussions, in a church-setting nonetheless are quite disgusting?
Can it not be demonstrated rationally that a public display such as I saw on the video is more characteristic of a false teacher or a pastor that faithfully preaches God’s Word?
I mean even the Emergents recognize a strong tie between praxy and doctrine. To them, if your practice is wrong, then why does it matter what you believe — it can’t be worth anything anyway. This “teacher” and this “church” has demonstrated that they’re church is a very different organism (at least in apperance) than the one which was purchased with the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Can it not be demonstrated rationally that such discussions at a church gathering demonstrates that the participants are ignorant?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
clearly,
can it? perhaps … but we haven’t seen it done in this piece. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m saying it hasn’t been done. And your post is no exception. You employ the same appeal to my “you know better” feelings, yet no scripture is given.
Like I said, perhaps scripture is clear on this … perhaps it is debatable … perhaps it’s ay-ok. But with posts like this, one could be left wondering.
You can’t sit back and say that you believe in the authority of scripture, yet offer nothing more than your opinion on “shame”. You can’t have it both ways.
Again, as far as the post at AM goes, not impressed.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Here are some words for Nathan to consider before he nexts pontificates his emerging personal opinions:
So he [John the Baptist] began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Luke 3:7-9)
Now watch the world according to Nathan burned up by the above Words of God:
Why don’t you please put your ego down and learn…
July 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I’m done discussing this with you Nate. Jesus said something about pearls and pigs…
July 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Ken,
Good grief, I’m not necessarily saying that the words are never to be used … I’m saying that you failed to demonstrate that they were legitimate descriptions of the people your threw them at.
While we’re playing though, go back and look at the verses you quoted. Then find out why he said such strong words to them. It wasn’t because they were having a frank discussion about sex in mixed company.
Also note that the authors on this site are very careful not to throw around terms that call your salvation into question.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Let me provide the term for people like these as expressed in the original languages. The actual transliteration is “kook”. I know this might be a little deep for someone without the ancient language credentials, but trust me, it applies.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
clearly,
believe it or not, I’m not trying to fight. I’m just trying to make my point and have it addressed with more than “come on, you know it’s wrong Nate”.
That’s all.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
You see Nathan, that’s the thing; you just can’t seem to see the issues clearly here.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Ken,
perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain it to us?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
We’ve tried but you only seem to hear Erwin.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The heart of the matter is this: all of these “minstries” and churches are going after ratings, the dollar, increase in attendance, whatever. They do what they do to attract attention. it’s trash.
This post from Tim Reed’s blog reflects this.
http://churchvoices.com/archives/418
Where in the Bible is all this sex talk that they claim is there? Please don’t give me Song of Solomon. It wasn’t included in the canon merely to encourage us in the romance department.
Believe me I am far from being a prude, however all of this “sex/porn church” tripe is just a device.
Anyway they would all have to go a long way to beat out this preacher:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/
We say Nero fiddled while Rome burned? What is the church doing?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Sex sells. From the advent of the photograph to today’s slick pornography the church has bee drawn into a voyeurism that has nothing to do with the Bible. It is amazing that Christians in former centuries ever procreated and stayed married. As a matter of fact they had more children and less divorce.
Gee, any correlation?
July 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Rick,
” The New Testament teaches “the marriage bed is undefiledâ€, anything else is opinion. Our preoccupation with sex is cultural, not Biblical. God din’t give details, so before the populace knew how to read they came with Creator installed instincts. They worked, we are still here!”
now I Amen part of this… but I think the Bible has much to say on the topic… Leviticus has a great deal… and Song of Songs… have you read Ezekiel 16?
To say though it is left up to instinct to me sounds that we are no different from the animals.. but I think we are greatly different from them.
Blessings,
iggy
July 6th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Ken,
“We’ve tried but you only seem to hear Erwin.”
If you had some real consistency in your theology and practice of it… we might be able to hear you… but your actions speak louder than words.
Blessings,
iggy
July 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I said New Testament. Paul says just a little more about it than he does Mary about which he says nothing. Those verses you site are not teaching verses, which is what that screaming lady as well as preachers across the country are doing. Just because God placed in us the expertise to complete the “act” does not mean we are like the animals.
We are worse than animals. I have never seen a group of dogs gather together on the lawn to watch two other dogs “go at it”. But this very night thousands if not millions of men especially will pull up a chair and watch others mate and many other things. Natural brute beasts, yep, worse than the animals!
July 6th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Chris P,
You’re so cute when you start with a priori assumptions and insert them into the scriptures. Song of Songs was most certainly in the scriptures as an example of a romantic relationship. That is if you read the Bible literally. You do want to read the Bible literally, don’t you? What indication do you have in SoS that it is something other than a collection of romantic and erotic poems? After all, the Jewish people were under the impression that’s what they are what with requiring boys to become men via their bar mitzah before cracking open the SoS.
Then, you have Paul’s writings concerning sex, for example, 1 Cor 7 in which he instructs married couples to avoid remain together for the purposes of having sex except for a time and for the purposes of prayer, Paul’s admonition that sex always joins together two people into one even when its with a prostitute (which of course strikes at the heart of marriage as its laid out from the very beginning), Paul’s warning to marry and sex it up rather than to burn with lust. And none of this even scratches the surface of the OT allusions to Israel as a straying whore when they go off to worship other gods. That imagery doesn’t hit home unless you have a proper view of married sex. And this is just off the top of my head, that’s not even after a serious study to prepare a sermon series ahead of time.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
And it is for that very reason a frank and open discussion about sex and pornography is necessary. Instead of pretending everyone is 15 and has a good laugh at the sound of the word “intercourse” … perhaps we should all realize that we’re adults and we don’t need to blush if the pastor quotes a passage from the Song of Solomon.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
We need a frank and open discussion on the prayer closet, separation, love of the Word, the holiness of God, the power of the Spirit, and revival.
Dr. Phil can have a discussion of sex. What is there to discuss? Two married people are allowed to do it, everyone else - no. Talk, talk, talk, yea, we certainly don’t have enough of that.
What does it say about the church when we read the Song of Solomon we see sex, not God’s love for Israel, not God’s love for the church, and not God’s love for a believer. It probably reveals what we’ve been trained to look for. I wonder why Sprgeon didn’t see what we see, he could have set his generation free.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Henry,
“What does it say about the church when we read the Song of Solomon we see sex, not God’s love for Israel, not God’s love for the church, and not God’s love for a believer.”
Is says that we’re honestly reading the scriptures instead of imposing what we want on them.
“Dr. Phil can have a discussion of sex. What is there to discuss? Two married people are allowed to do it, everyone else - no. Talk, talk, talk, yea, we certainly don’t have enough of that.”
Are you seriously suggesting that we turn to secular self-help gurus for explanations on topics found in the Bible? If Rob Bell had said something like that you’d be all over him as a heretic of the highest order.
“We need a frank and open discussion on the prayer closet, separation, love of the Word, the holiness of God, the power of the Spirit, and revival.”
Of course we do. And do you know why? Because the Bible has something to say about all those topics. Just like it does about sex.
“I wonder why Sprgeon didn’t see what we see, he could have set his generation free.”
I’d wonder that too if I thought Spurgeon was a prophet delivering to us words the Lord had spoken directly to him. As it is I guess I’ll just have to stick with the scriptures.
“
July 6th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
“I guess I’ll just have to stick with the scriptures.” As did Spurgeon.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“We need a frank and open discussion on the prayer closet, separation, love of the Word, the holiness of God, the power of the Spirit, and revival.”
Using your line of reasoning, here’s how we would talk about things like this.
Pastor opens up Bible.
“Today we’ll be talking about lying. Don’t do it. OK, have a nice day everyone.”
“Today, we’ll talk about prayer. The Bible says to pray. So pray. You’re dismissed.”
Wow, preaching is simple! I think I’ll start a seminary.
OK, just a little sarcasm. Don’t take it personally Rick. You do see my point though, right?
July 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Ken, wait … I’m confused. First I ask for scripture to support your post on the “newlywed game”, and I’m told I don’t see the issues clearly.
Then you amen a quote that says to stick with scriptures.
Which is it?
July 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Please outline for me exactly what the Scriptures TEACH about sex. Not references, but TEACHING verses in the New Testament. From those let us try and formulate a series. These are the topics I want the Word to teach me, and if we cannot find Scriptures for these then all we say is opinion.
SEX
1. Positions
2. Frequency
3. Toys
4. Helpful movies
5. Orgasms
You get the picture, let’s Scripturally get a series together. Remember, we don’t want a frank and open discussion, we want what God has taught.
BTW - My Dr. Phil reference was massive sarcasm. I wouldn’t listen to Dr. Phil as to how to salt my food.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Keep in mind, in former days the man comes home stinking, no shower, no deoderant, no toothpaste, and he and his wife climb into bed, many times in the same room others sleep, and somehow, someway, without pictuires, without an open discussion, no scented candles, no negligee, and by some magical feat they managed to do what causes a baby!
Man, that was some magic!
July 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
And all you emergent leaning guys should pay more attention to orthopraxy than orthodoxy in this matter!
July 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Rick,
“And all you emergent leaning guys should pay more attention to orthopraxy than orthodoxy in this matter!”
Is this in the same vein of thought as “Those who can’t do, teach”?
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist!
July 6th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for taking it in the way I meant it, RM.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
You know what is sick and sad, and disgusting about this whole stupid thread. Nathan tries to say, “Hey, look they did a good job.” And the whole thing ends up in a name calling, my side’s right stupidity. Clearly comes in after apparently having a bad day and starts tossing grenades. My favorite quote from him is,
. Now, if I wanted to name my blog pryo something or other I would say “In other words, even the apostate, pagan, devil worshiping, sacrificing to Molech pagans…” is what he meant. What is wrong with us! We can’t even agree when we agree? People are dying right now, going hungry and suffering all sorts of tragedy and we can’t even let it go for one minute? Is this really what Jesus meant when he said the world will know us by our love for one another? This entire exchange is a disgrace to the God everyone here claims to serve.
Oh and I sincerely doubt “Nate” is “Nathan” since he Nathan wrote the article and Nate didn’t seem to like it.
Clearly, I’m not calling just you out. I’m calling us all out. Myself included.
The banter on this thread is worthy of an elementary school playground. Shame on all of us.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Henry,
Seriously, I’ve outlined it pretty well for you. Can you legitimately point me in the direction of a sermon entitled “Orgasms, Jesus, and you”? If not you’re tilting at strawmen.
I really don’t get what the opposition is to teaching what the Bible has to say about sex. Its not like that part slipped in there accidentally while God wasn’t looking.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Nate != Nathan (the author)
different people. sorry, thought the different spelling would make that clear.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Oh, and it’s not that I didn’t like this article … it’s the article at AM that I wasn’t impressed with. Not because I don’t agree with their conclusion, but that they came to it using superlative hyperbole, and no bible. That’s all.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Nate,
You are entitled to your opinion and you’re entitled to share it. You’re fine. It’s just I saw this thread and all the comments, and I thought, “what could we disagree on with this one?..” Then I read the comments. Maybe I’m wrong, but it just didn’t seem to be all that God honoring. Not all the comments, but certainly some of them.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“superlative hyperbole, and no bible.” Well you see, that’s just my way of being like ol’ Brian McLaren: “gelatinous almost conclusions, and no bible.”
Hey, still gets the desired result of a “conversation” though don’t it.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
As long as you’re being honest about your lack of Bible.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Ken,
It is better to have little bible and those that walk in the belief they have by faith in Christ, then to have great bible knowledge and do nothing but put down others with it.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 7th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Tim,
Same Bible as McLaren.
iggy,
What a person believes is of no importance if that faith isn’t in the Jesus of the Bible. Faith in the wrong Savior doesn’t save anybody.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Ken,
Then why are you attacking people that believe in the same saviour, Jesus of the bible as you?
I think you are missing a great understanding of who Jesus is. Your limited view of Him seems to limit God to your own understanding.
And that is sad.
God is bigger than your own concept of him… and your own understanding.
You put down people all over with claims they do not teach the bible… yet I see you rarely teach it also. I see you attack straw men and then make things up and they USE the bible to prove YOU are Right… and that is a gross mishandling of scirpture.
Blessings,
iggy
July 7th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Joe, you interpreted “I mean even the emergents…” to mean: “In other words, even the apostate, pagan, devil worshiping, sacrificing to Molech pagans…â€
And we are supposed to believe that I am the one who deconstructs what others say?
If you go back and read the posts again, you will see that early on, I apologized for my harsh/overly sarcastic tone.
July 7th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Clearly,
I wasn’t saying that was what you meant, I was trying to say that too often we all do that to each other. That’s why I said, ifI named my blog something else…
July 7th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Let me define them. Those brothers and sisters who we love in Christ, some of whom sincerely love Jesus and His Word, but with whom we have differences, some serious and some methodological. God teach us love and patience for them as we ask for them toward us, and lead us all into your truth, which is in Jesus.
Lord, give us wisdom in all things and let our flesh be crucified. And in all things may Christ have all the preeminence.
OK Joe, you can go back to Molech!
July 7th, 2007 at 9:43 am
iggy,
And I’m just as sure that this is you: “I think you are missing a great understanding of who Jesus is. Your limited view of Him seems to limit God to your own understanding.”