So which is it?
Posted by admin on Feb 15th, 2008
2008
Feb 15
Are ODMs scandalized by married people having sex, or unmarried people not having sex?
Or are they just ashamed of the Biblical admonitions concerning sex?
CRN.Info and Analysis
Seeking Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness Amidst Persecution From Within (Matt 23:23)
Pages
Article Categories
Archives
-
Book Search
Blogroll
- A Piper Cub Lands in Philistia
- Andrew Peterson
- Bene Diction Blogs On
- Boar’s Head Tavern
- Bob Blog
- Brian Jones
- Cerulean Sanctum
- Church Voices
- Emergent What?
- Fishing the Abyss
- iMonk
- Joe Martino
- John H. Armstrong
- Kingdom Come
- Less Travelled
- Letters from Kamp Krusty
- Life Under the Blue Sky
- Lone Prairie Art Works
- Love without Agenda
- Monday Morning Insight
- My Bloggy Blog
- My Lord and My Blog
- Radical Congruency
- Relevant Christian
- Russ’ Ramblings
- Tall Skinny Kiwi
- the mindful mission
- The World According to Bruce
- Theology for the Masses
- To the Tune of Tim
- Todd Blog
- Two or Three.net
- Verum Serum
- Write About Now
- You Can Know God
Podcast Feeds
-
Recent Comments
- Joe on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Sandman on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Paul C on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Chad on “When Your Heart is on Fire…
- Rick Frueh on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Jerry on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Jerry on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Paul C on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Bo Diaz on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- Phil Miller on The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
-
Recent Posts
- The Risk of Local Church Autonomy
- “When Your Heart is on Fire…
- When GBA is Enough, What a Burden to Bear…
- De-sanitizing Christmas #4: Away in a Manger (2008 Update)
- O Holy Night (Reprise)
- Learning to Listen to Joan Osbourne: One of Us
- De-sanitizing Christmas #3: Meet the Parents (2008 Update)
- While You Were Sleeping
- Wait…, what?
- De-sanitizing Christmas #2: Happy Birthday Jesus! (2008 Update)
-
Meta
CRN.Info and Analysis is Powered by Wordpress and hosted by Zach Rosing Productions
Theme Zen In Grey is designed by Sajith M
February 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
No, what I am angry about is the total disregard of what church is supposed to be.
1. Why do we need to tell single Christians not to have sex? Because the are not Christians- they are false converts if they are not living a lifestyle already that involves chastity as commanded in the Bible. Instead of this, why not biblical admonitions, expository teaching?
2. Why do we need to tell married Christians to have sex, and tell them how many times they must do it? I wonder do they also get into positions that are acceptable? Do they make allowances for the monthly cycle? And, after all, what is the definition of sex?
This is NOT what the church is. The church is supposed to be a place where people are built up and equipped through the teaching of the Bible, the fellowship of the saints, prayer, practice of ordinances, and, ultimately, the glorification of God. This church is a perfect example of the post-modern pablum puke emergent seeker sensitive dogs breakfast that makes a mockery of Christ.
I’m not sure you want to go after this article, Tim.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Tim,
Neither of the three options that you list are the case, and if you tried to read and understand the post, you would discover that to be so. It seems to me that you have no desire to critically observe what others write, but rather to poke fun. That type of response illustrates a lack of maturity on your part. Can you interact with any of the actual meat of the post? I pray that you find a mirror and look hard into it to see if your motivations are pure or selfish.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree with Pastorboy. If it was things like this that the ODM’s spent their time exposing, it wouldn’t trouble me nearly as much. This is sensationalised trash, it will draw crowds in as I’m sure they are planning - but not for the right reasons. This site should focus its energy exposing the lies, slander and hypocrisy of the ODM’s not nit-picking at legitimate concerns they raise - despite the typical 1950’s morality spin on Ingrid’s article, it did raise some important points.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
What positions aren’t acceptable? I’m more than willing to go after this article with you PB. You seem to have something of a warped and toxic view of God.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
So is married people having sex, or unmarried people not having sex not part of the teaching of the Bible?
Heretic.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Ian,
If we disagree that they are legitimate concerns–even if you think they are legitimate, my we still bring those up?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
So…the only thing the Scriptures speak to is “ethics”?
(i.e. the naughty vs. nice behaviors)
I’m not saying that people should unpack issues of frequency, etc. etc.
I wouldn’t go there, but what I am sad about it that this church seems to have played into the hands of people who have demonstrated a general anxiety of speaking about sex other than the the traditionalist, modernist, pablum puke of hyper-moralistic control freaks (that churning your feeling after reading that…take note. See how such inflammatory ammo doesn’t help?) that elevate one particular aspect of sexuality (the ethical) to be sum of the issue. Furthermore it is clear that they do not seek to understand that there is more to understanding this arena of the imago dei and our churches are filled with people who need to hear if there is more wisdom on this stuff from God than just:
Don’t have sex before you’re married.
Don’t have sex with someone else while you’re married.
Don’t watch porn.
Don’t masturbate.
Don’t think about sex with someone else (while married or not).
Don’t have sex with children.
Don’t have sex with the same gender.
Don’t have sex with animals.
And that’s all you need.
That’s all God cares about.
That’s all that can be discerned from the Holy Scriptures about the human self made in the image of God.
PB, I hear you. I’m frustrated by the churches too…and I’m not saying that this particular church’s method is the way to go. But there’s gotta be more than moralistic snobbery too.
I’m not saying that’s you, but we’re talking about a woman who wrote articles about 8 year old girls “flouncing” about just cuz she was wearing a bikini…a little girls bikini. It’s not a thong, it’s not a string, it’s a little girls two piece.
So the “heart of the matter” may be valid, but the ranting, repressive, shame filled, anger and fear driven “faith” makes it very hard to move to constructive conversation and action that addresses deep issues head on.
Do you hear what I’m saying?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Its this kind of thing that makes me say that ODMs have very little regard for scripture and all kinds of regard for their own tiny little culture. The teachings of scripture are clear: married people should have sex, lots of it, while unmarried people should be celibate. That is exactly what this church is teaching, and yet the ODMs have a problem with it.
Meanwhile they screech about holiness when it comes to things like music, language and dress.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“False conversions”?
Why does Ingrid need to be constantly reminded that her responses are not marked by humility, love and and a deep awareness of her own clear failures as a human being?
By your argument, it’s because she’s had a false conversion and doesn’t manifest the lifestyle of humility as commanded by the Bible.
I don’t think we should “go there”…nobody would be saved by that standard. Unless we start picking and choosing which things “commanded by the Bible” aren’t as indicative of true conversion or not…
February 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Okay Joe, Lets Go!
If they want to form habits, why not thirty days of reading the Bible and praying at least thirty minutes a day? Nope- that wouldn’t attract a crowd
How about thirty days of skipping one meal and focussing on praying and giving to the hungry around the world? Nope- completely unattractive
How about thirty days of sharing your faith verbally with everyone you come into contact with? Nope- too scary.
How about thirty days of using your spare time to help a neighbor or a single parent with something they need help with? Are you kidding? No way.
How about thirty days of no television,or no internet, or no__________- whatever your idol is. No way! That won’t attract visitors.
There are 100 things (probably more) that I could think of that would be far more biblical and building of biblical fellowship than this rancid vomit.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
You still didn’t answer the question, “which positions aren’t acceptable?”
As for your comment, I get it now, you’re clairvoyant. Because this church has issued this challenge they must not be challenging their church anywhere else. Once again, unless they look like John, they must be bad.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Talk about rancid vomit…you know all about this church from one article. Well done, John, well done.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
pb,
i’ve been in and around several churches that are sympathetic to emerging church issues and also “seeker churches” that encourage and have programs that enact those very things. So much for the criticisms of the ODM’s.
Can you see that such broad brush reactions from ODM’s don’t line up with reality?
Just cuz a few churches here and there do fail doesn’t mean the ODM responses are warranted with such general angst.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
NC,
I don’t see the comment you are referencing…
February 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Tim,
Having sex is biblical, within the boundaries of Marriage.
Let us simply ask the question: why the sensationalism regarding this series? Because, as one pastor put it- it get butts in the seats.
Look at the advertisements they have on their site! If this does not convince you that this is just another ploy to fill up the church- well I guess nothing will.
Again, all this would not be a problem if once they got their butts in the seats they actually preached the biblical Gospel.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
All churches fail, have problems, make mistakes, and are co-opted to some kind of a culture whether they admit it or not.
This whole pipe dream of a kind of re-pristinated christianity is really dumb whether it comes from a traditionalist voice, a house church voice, a emerging voice, or whatever.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
joe,
I’m ref’ing PB’s comment about praying, fasting, etc. for 30 days.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I dont know what positions are not acceptable…that was a sarcastic comment wondering what they are teaching about as far as the thirty days….
February 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think Joe said it best:
Talk about rancid vomit…you know all about this church from one article. Well done, John, well done.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I think PB is right about “sensationalist” marketing techniques. I also think ODM’s think anything honest and brought to light that wouldn’t have been in “polite” company in the evangelical middle class of 1953 is “sensationalist”…
so it takes some figuring out.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Ok, I know there are plenty of churches (and blogs) that are not teaching the gospel, do you know that this guy isn’t because you’ve heard him preach?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
No, they ought to. It is a privilege of being married, and is honoring to God. But do we really have to make it public?
No, but it is a scandal if they claim to be Christians and they are having premarital sex. Again the question…what is sex? what does the word ‘is’ mean?
Nope, we should talk about the biblical admonitions concerning sex. If that is what they are doing, great. But, if you go to their site, I will bet that you will find about 5% scripture and 95% sensationalism to get butts in the seats.
I think we should absolutely teach the whole counsel of God- But when it comes to a challenge like this, it calls into question their motive. And why do they have to challenge singles not to have sex for a set period of time? It seems that they must be having sex. If they are, that is a lifestyle sin issue that needs to be dealt with. Those folks should be facing church discipline, not some 30 day challenge.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m actually more concerned that the Church is asking the married couples to have sex everyday for 30 days.
I’m not a doctor but logistically this creates an issue for at least one week in my house!
T.M.I. ????
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Chris,
there’s also a thing called “chastity in marriage”.
For some people sex everyday is normal. For others it’s inconvenient. For others it would represent “inordinate” desire that is disordered. There’s definitely no cookie cutter. Maybe that’s why the ODM’s obsess over the ethical dimension only…it’s easier and it makes you look/sound good without having to do any real work pastorally.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Chris, who said that?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I think I am going to take this pastor up on his challenge. I am married, so for the next 30 days . . . Yeah, Baby!
February 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Do you live in reality? According to statistics 78% of all Americans have pre-marital sex (or some form of it).
It’s a bit of a stretch to be upset that they are telling people who are having sex not to. Then using it to assume that the church doesn’t preach biblically is well… “making an art form out finding a needle in a haystack”.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
No, “it” doesn’t. You do.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
John,
Do you believe that a person can be addicted to something (alcohol, sex, etc..) and still be a Christian?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Said that “it’s logistically impossible” or
“have sex everyday for 30 days”
If it’s the logistically; it’s not really impossible just err…not something I would do.
If it’s the Sex everyday then the pastor said that in the Fox news article. Found here
February 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am
ah, I gotcha. You were the someone
February 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
and so, where is the Bible in all this fancy, scmancy sermon topics?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Hey John, You may have missed my question as there has been a flurry of comments on this topic. My question was; “Do you believe that someone can be addicted and still be a Christian?”
February 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
i have 2 observations on this issue. the first is that relevant church is asking unmarried people to stop having sex for 30 days. that’s really odd. it sounds like they are telling these unmarried people that it is okay to go back to having sex as soon as the 30 day sex challenge is over.
my 2nd observation comes from one of the news stories about this church. fox tampa bay wrote this about the pastor…
…Wirth is a former Baptist. He founded his non-denominational ministry three years ago. And he markets his church by tackling unusual or controversial topics….
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=8BF8862B8DDB114CFB8C769376B0FD75?contentId=5781468&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
sounds to me like the media’s understanding about this pastor is that he is using these controversial things to market his church. i have a huge problem with that. he is using sex to sell his church. that is inappropriate and out of bounds for christian pastors.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
People are having enough sex- that is the problem. Chris says 78% of singles engage in premarital sex! Having sex is the issue we should be addressing. But calling it sin would not place butts in the seats. Disciplining those who are having sex outside of marriage will not put butts in the seats. So, lets not do that. Lets issue an inane challenge rather than looking at what the Bible calls fornication, and becoming involved in church discipline.
As far as married couples go, these issues may be valid reasons why they are not having sex, but there is a more powerful word- love. Why not address how we can better love one another, which will manifest itself in trying to look good, doing chores, and making time for one another.
I have a better challenge. Lets honor/esteem one another in our relationship. Lets set aside 30 days of 30 minutes of uninterupted communication with our spouses. Lets have 30 days of serving one another. Lets have 30 days of placing our spouses needs above that of our own. Lets have 30 days of mutual submission. Then, my friends, you will have sex as a natural expression of the love that will be brimming over. Sex isn’t the problem, it is a manifestation of a deeper problem. We don’t love one another the way the Bible teaches.
The church has not remained silent, it just doesn’t want to teach what the Bible says. This is what you get when the Pastor says his favorite book is Blue Like Jazz, and the Bible does not even make his list. Teaching celibacy outside of marriage, the sin of homosexuality, the marriage bed being undefiled, these are issues that are very unpopular, and don’t place butts in the seats. And therefore, they don’t get taught. instead, we teach:
-
And so, again I ask, where is the Bible in all of this?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Its right there in front of you with the BIBLICAL teaching that sex is for married people, not for unmarried people.
Says the guy judging the crap out of an entire church based on a bare bones news article.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Joe,
I believe that the Bible teaches that when we become a believer, the Holy Spirit works in us and makes us a new creature in Christ. We have a new relationship to sin- it is dead. Romans 7 teaches us that though it is dead, it can be aroused by the law, and in some cases can cause us to do what we know is wrong. But we hate it! We fall into sin, but we do not dive into it. That is the difference.
1 John talks about walking in darkness vs. walking in light. This would seem to suggest a besetting or lifestyle sin that marks one who is not walking in light, i.e. a Christian. This is a difficult passage, but It would seem that one who is a believer would be in a battle against sin and hate it!
So can one be addicted to it and be a Christian? I don’t know. Is he in a battle against it? Is his new nature fighting against his old nature with all his might? Or does he feel comfortable in his sin. I guess this is where I would go with it. The latter is not, the former is. This is all hypothetical, right?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Tim,
In case you didn’t know, I have spent this morning at their site that they published, all the quotes came from their site which they published.
Talk about not doing your research
February 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The fact that you think that means you know that church condemns you more than any point I could make.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Random, disconnected thoughts here…….
Fundamentalist’s on sex…..Everyone is doing it and no one is talking about it.
My ninth grace gym teacher “Those who talk about doing it , aren’t.”
We know our parents are “doing it” but we don’t want the details.
My personal opinion is that Fundamentalist legalism actually promotes immorality by placing unrealistic expectations on people.
Young adults get married 5-7 years later than my generation. This means they have been in a hormone raging state for 10-12 years before they marry. And we stand in the pulpit and preach a Nancy Reagan sermon “Just say No.” We tell a guy that doing the real act is wrong and then we tell him don’t masturbate. Please, do tell, how that is all working out?
I have said before and I will say again………..there is a tremendous amount of sexual repression among ODM’s. It shows in their attacks on anything that has to do with sexuality.
The Evangelical Church seems to have no answer for the sexual issues of the 21st century. Just pound the pulpit, scream louder, quote Bible verses, and then go home and have sex. (in the Biblical position of course)
Bruce
February 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Oh really, Tim.
That condemns me? That I can only judge them on what they publish?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Boy, whenever I go away, I always miss the fireworks.
It’s one thing to disagree with something a church does. There’s many programs and things that I see churches do that just strike me as dumb.
Being dumb does not automatically make one an apostate, though. This is the thing that ODM’s have never gotten through their thick skulls and never will. They have defined their own little faith with it fences that make it near impossible for anyone to meet their standards. They are really modern-day Pharisees, and they are too blind to see it.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Bruce,
Which is the Biblical position?
Seriously, do you believe what you wrote? Are you saying that we cannot hold to biblical standards in the 21st century? That God did not know that we would be under the pressure we are under to be promiscuous? Are you saying that God is unreasonable? That the Holy Spirit can not empower us to be obedient? Do you really believe what you are saying?
God’s Word is very clear. Masterbation is a gray area; The Bible does not condemn it specifically, but it does condemn lust, which, in my experience, usually accompanies the act. I know many single people that struggle with that very issue, but the struggle and the temptation are not wrong, it is the struggle and the victory over self that is an identifying mark of a Christian.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Can someone please tell me what the Biblical position is. I am getting confused. I am supposed to have sex or just spend 30 minutes talking to her?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
nator,
If you are married, it is up to you.
if you are single, take a cold shower.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
That didn’t help me much PB!
February 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yes I believe what I wrote.
All of it.
What I am sure I won’t believe is your twist and perversion of anything I write.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“That is exactly what this church is teaching, and yet the ODMs have a problem with it.”
This church is looking to fill its pews. This is the real issue with everyhing that gets debated here. Warren, Bell, Relevant Church whatever are in it for themselves. Theyv are publicity seeker-friendly. I don’t believe that give a rip about the Bible , the kingdom or even the people they claim to be there for.
“The Evangelical Church seems to have no answer for the sexual issues of the 21st century.”
Neither do you, and neither does Relevant Church.
You guys give a great case why we should go back to meeting in homes.
Read your bibles, pray, seek His face. I do not need any “pastor” telling me. my wife, or my kids if they should have sex and how often.
ODM’s have no problem with sex. It’s those who feel they must make it a public forum that have the problem.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Here is some practical, biblical advice, Bruce. From the Evidence Bible:
Hope this helps!
(Predicting the reaction will be rebellion against the translation, or interpretation of clear biblical passages, or against the author)
February 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Uh……….so we have moved from having sex to porn?
I get it……….Having sex is porn.
Thanks for the help
February 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I think it’s interesting that they are getting flack for “putting butts in the seats” when they actually hit a Biblical topic that also works to get people in the door.
I mean how many people do you know would say “You know what will get people to listen to us? Let’s tell them to not have sex before marriage….” but these guys cracked it, and instead of being happy they are addressing sex in a Biblical manner, we slam them because the ads are different and so on, so what if the ads and promotion are a little goofy and scandelous in some circles, the fact is they managed to make Biblical values of sex a way to interest people in coming to the sermons!
As for the ODM’s, as we’ve learned before, you never talk about sex unless it’s female sex addiction (I think Slice said that one is okay, but pornorgraphy and male problems aren’t), and then we wonder why people have a busted view of sex out and about when we’re not willing to talk about it in church.
And as for “are they saying it’s okay to go back after 30 days” the whole habit forming aspect mentioned in the articles tells you that’s not the point, they want to develop a habit of chastity and a habit of giving of oneself in marriage.
As for the comments about well 30 days might not work in marriage, I think that’s why thay say “Sexual Activity” instead of “Intercourse”
I agree a 30 day dare for other things would be great as well, and whose to say this doesn’t set off a habit of “30 days of…”
and do we know what is going on in the other ministries of the church? What the sunday school, small group, youth group topics are?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Actually Ingrid shows here view of sex:
Have you ever wondered how reproduction ever took place before there were pastors like this?
It is for reproduction. I guess I am a better than average Christian since I have six kids.
The bottom line for me is that much of the Evangelical Church has an unhealthy, Puritanical view of sexuality. As a result it breeds guilt, shame and it should be no wonder that we as Evangelicals have the same family/divorce/sexuality problems as the world.
Picture a young man wanting to serve Jesus………..his mentor is some middle aged preacher telling him that it is normal to want ice cream at Dairy Queen but until he is married he can’t have any ice cream. Of course this middle aged preacher can go to the Dairy Queen any time he wants.
God made the poor boy to desire what he can’t have. Eat, drink, sex. Hey two out of three ain’t bad.
BTW, I am not arguing for premartial sex. I am arguing against the sexual repressionists that are found in Evangelicalism.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
John - speaking of your “challenge” - two years ago, our church had a “90-day challenge” - to read through the entire Bible in 90 days. 500 (of about 2500 adults) completed it…
I do find a number of types of “challenges” to be hokey, but I know that there are a number of people wired differently than me, and such things help ‘kick-start’ good habits (which, scientifically require 21-28 repititions to actually become habits).
It seems to me that the Victorian streak in the ODM’s and the sensationalist streak in some churches are both at fult here, and if the challenge were pretty much anything non-sexual, we wouldn’t be having this conversation…
February 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Tim, you wrote:
“The teachings of scripture are clear: married people should have sex, lots of it”
Please quote the Biblical texts that support your assertion that the Scriptures clearly teach that married people should have lots of sex.
Mind you, I am not advocating for the opposite, but I am not familiar with the texts that you must have in mind in making this assertion. Thanks.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I’d take a gander at I Corinthians…
February 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I would rather take a gander at my wife
February 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Bruce, you wrote:
“God made the poor boy to desire what he can’t have.”
On the contrary, the Bible says:
Jam 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
Jam 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
Your appeal to feel sympathy for the “poor boy” is misguided and very dangerous. The “poor boy” is no more to be pitied than am I or any other sinner in need of God’s grace. Although you may not have intended it, the clear meaning of your words is to charge God with evil. That, my friend, is an untenable position.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Joe,
Are you answering my previous question to Tim? If so, can you be more specific, or are you saying that the whole book says for married couples to have lots of sex? Thanks.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
1 cor 7, specifically this verse.
So a more detailed response might be “the amount of sex is commisserate wtih the amount of desire”. Which is generally much higher than ODMs will admit to.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Pastor Boy,
We agree for once. You said “Instead of this, why not biblical admonitions, expository teaching?”
That was my whole point on our buddy from Tennessee preaching Rob Bell Nooma videos every Sunday night! We should stick with good expository preaching!
I could share with you a lot of passages concerning the topic of sex! Some are a little graphic but they are in the bible! I think this a very creative, productive idea! Studies show that married couples who engage in sexual activity on a regular basis have healthier marriages! God created sex it brings us closer to Him. People who are engaging in sexual activity who are not married need to stop! God designed sex for marriage. thirty days of fasting from sex could reveal a lot to them about their lives and relationship with Christ.
It kills me, ODM’s like to talk about and hammer any other sin issue! They like to focus on Gods wrath and judgment but they don’t want the dirty word “sex” to be brought up! It is the great misconception if we ignore it we don’t have to deal with it and maybe it will go away!
I hope churches everywhere catch on to this challenge and challenge their congregations to do it as well! What a phenomenal idea!
February 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Tim,
Taken in or out of context, the passage that you cite says nothing about having lots of sex. Rather, Paul is admonishing couples not to selfishly withhold sexual relations. It also needs to be balanced with other Biblical calls for selflessness in marriage. Your assertion that “the amount of sex is commisserate with the amount of desire” taken along with your reference to lots of sex seems to assume that 1) one ought to insist on sex every time one has a desire, and 2) everyone has a high desire for sex.
Also, by your last comment are you meaning to say that ODMs don’t admit that there is a high desire for sex? I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at, or how you base that claim. I read Ingrind’s post, and I do not see where she insinuated that 1) married people do not have a high desire for sex, or 2) married people should not have a high desire for sex.
Thanks for your respone thus far.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Friends,
I’m taking the approach on this one that this is really a meaningless challenge but for other reasons. Here’s a quote I pulled from the local foxnews in FLA where this preacher is located. Here’s the quote:
Wirth has found biblical references that he says suggest Jesus disapproved of pre-marital sex and promoted sex in marriage. So, he believes people connect to God through life-long commitment.
I’m curious about that last line. What does that last sentence mean: “…he believes people connect to God through life-long committment.” How can a single person abstaining from sex for 30 days development a life long committment and thus ‘connect to God’? I’m not trying to be obtuse, I really don’t see the connection or the point the author of the article is making.
Is this what the Pastor sees? I do remember a passage from Hebrews that says something about sex. “Keep the marriage bed pure.” Paul said something too, “Fullfill your obligation to one another and do not abstain except for prayer and then come back together after a while” (paraphrase).
But, my question is what does that last sentence mean, and what does it have to do with sex or abstinence? Just wondering…
jerry
PS–I hope I am not now classified as an ‘ODM’ because I have taken an opposite point of view in my own blog post on this issue.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Jerry,
You’re too level-headed to be an ODM…
I think that having a discussion on sex (much like Driscoll’s that I posted at lunch today) is important in the church, but I think that a number of churches (like this one) have been a bit tacky in their execution of this…
Tacky - yes
Heretic/Apostate/Sold-out/False converts? - no
February 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Erica, you wrote:
“It kills me, ODM’s like to talk about and hammer any other sin issue! They like to focus on Gods wrath and judgment but they don’t want the dirty word “sex†to be brought up!”
In the context of discussing the article that was the subject of this post, I don’t believe it is accurate to make this assertion. Whether one agrees with her point or not, Ingrid clearly was not saying that “the dirty word “sex”" should not be brougth up. Rather, it seems that she objected to the manner in which the subject was approached and portrayed. She seems to decry the titillation that appears to be more in lock step with worldly portrayals of sex.
Perhaps you had in mind another specific article by an ODM that states or insinuates that they don’t “want the dirty word “sex” to be brought up”. Otherwise, I think you might have overstated and mischaracterized the nature of the concerns that have been expressed, akin to creating a strawman.
Thanks for your consideration of these comments.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
STILL waiting to find out what the Biblical position is!
February 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
eric,
how is it a wordly portrayal of sex? and I don’t think erica is wrong about ingrid- she is the woman who called sexuality a burden.
also how is the 1 corinthians verse not about lots of sex?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
once again, that comment was by me (mandy) not tim. i even changed the name and e-mail address…..
and it still says tim.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Nator,
Here, this will give you a clue.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
That helped a little bit. Now I know where my left and right arms should be.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Mandy,
Thank you for your comments. The asserrtion about worldly portrayal of sex was not mine, but rather my attempt to characterize some of what Ingrid had said, Remember, I was not defending what Ingrid said, but rather trying to keep the discussion about things that she did say or attempt to say. My point was that she did not decry the use of the word sex as Erica had stated. As for Ingrid calling sexuality a burden, I cannot comment on that because I don’t know the context or that statement.
I believe that I attempted to expalin how the referenced text is not about lots of sex. Can you explain to me how you think it is about lots of sex? Is there something from my earlier explanation that you disagree with or that I didn’t explain well?
Thanks again for the opportunity to discourse with you.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Really? Because I don’t see any indication that withholding of sexual relations are characterized as selfish. I also don’t see this as being directed to individual members of a marriage, but a general command within a marriage. When a couple wants to have sex, that couple should have sex.
You’ve got the implication in Ingrid’s original article that sex is only for pro-creation, in an earlier article she used the phrase “burden of sex”, not to mention anytime any church teaches anything about sex (even when, as in this case and the vast majority of cases the teachings are Biblical and not disputed by 99% of Christians including ODMs) it is screamed about how this is just “prurient pastors” and “worldly”.
Does that sound like the reaction of someone who views sex as a gift from God, something that is a blessing?
February 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think Ingrid implies strongly that sex is dirty- it should not be discussed.
She says “Have you ever wondered how reproduction ever took place before there were pastors like this?” (Sex is for reproduction-)
She thinks that porn and adultery is wrong, but how does these often come about? lack of sex, lack of talking about sex in the marriage.
I don’t know what to tell you eric, if you don’t see the verse that says “don’t withhold sex” as “hey, have sex.”
February 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Tim or Mandy, you wrote:
“Really? Because I don’t see any indication that withholding of sexual relations are characterized as selfish. I also don’t see this as being directed to individual members of a marriage, but a general command within a marriage. When a couple wants to have sex, that couple should have sex. ”
The verses leading up to verse five tell me that I must not withold the affection that is due my wife and that my body is not mine to control, but belongs to my wife, and vice versa. These are individual instructions, and if I do deprive my wife of sex, it is by very nature selfish. Putting my desires ahead of my wifes desires or needs is the definition of selfish. I agree that the command is a command for both in the marriage, and as such is a command within the marriage. I do not dispute that the passage would indicate that when a couple wants to have sex, that couple should have sex. I would argue that it means there are times when one of the couple does not particularly want to have sex, but should have sex anyway in order to render to their partner the affection that they are due. However, as I originally asserted, this does not equate to an instruction to have lots of sex. A couple could faithfully obey this command and have sex infrequently or frequently, depending on the indivudual and joints desires and needs. I believe that to sum up this passage as a clear scriptural teaching to have lots of sex is incorrect. Could this passage lead a couple to have more sex? Certainly it could, but not by necessity, and it certainly does not contain a mandate to have lots of sex. Again to be clear, I am not opposed to lots of sex, or think that a married couple is debauched if they have lots of sex. I do think we ought to be careful in our handling of scripture as it relates to sex, and I don’t think that we should ascribe more to the passage than it can support.
As to your last paragraph, I’n not sure it is fair to characterize Ingrid’s writing in this article as “screaming”. The word “prurient” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as follows:
“marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire”
Given this definition, it is an appropriate word for Ingrid to use to help make the point that she was attempting to make. To say that she thinks sex is a dirty word and doesn’t want it to be used is to mischarachterize her point. I cannot speak to the context of the “burden of sex” comment, but can see where that language could be used to characterize the amount of temptation that goes with the gift of sex, such as one might say “the burden of the love of food”, or the “burden of riches”. Such tings in an of themselves are not bad, but certainly can be a burden given how prone to pitfalls each may be. The Bible is full of warnings concerning sexual immorality, making it clear that the pitfalls of sexuality are great and numerous. Having said that, I can see how someone might use the phrase “burden of sex” without necessarily saying that it is undesireable. Also, I believe Ingrid’s comment concerning procreation was meant to indicate that we have proof that people have figured sex out throughout the ages, not to mean that procreation is the only use for sex.
I do believe that Ingrid’s comments should be fairly challenged based on their substance (or lack thereof), just as I believe that she should engage in sriting that speaks of the substance of an issue with fair characterizations. I believe that she has done that in this article. I will not say that I agree with everything that she had to say in the article, and I do at times question her tone.
I pray that we can all speak to each other in love for the edification of the Body of Christ and for God’s glory.
In Christian Love,
Eric
February 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mandy,
I agree that sexual sins can result from a lack of sex, or being deprived, and the passage that we have been discussing bears that out by saying “and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”. As far as some the implications that you assign to Ingrind, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. See my post above concerning the language about reproduction. I see that thrust of her post as being about the protrayal of sex in the advertisement and sermon series. I’ll hold off disputing any further on her ultimate view of sex as can or cannot be gleaned from this or other articles.
Yiou wrote:
“I don’t know what to tell you eric, if you don’t see the verse that says “don’t withhold sex†as “hey, have sex.†”
Although I find that characterization over simplified, I do agree that the passage encourages sexual relations among married couples. That has never been my point of contention, however. I was responding specifically to Tim’s assertion that the clear scriptural teaching is that couples should have “sex, lots of it”. The emphasis of “lots of it” just cannot be supported by that text. Couples need not be exhorted to have “lots of sex” or “great sex”. Biblical admonition concerning sexual relations in marrieage should stick to what the passages have to say. Can Christians have frequent sex in their marriages? Absolutely. Are Christians exhorted in the Bible regarding their sexual relations within marriage? Absolutely? Should we shy away from proper application of those passages of scripture? Absolutely not. Should we sensationalize the message and titillate people in order to spice up the Bible? I can’t support that.
Anyway, enough from me. I pray that we all will submit to God’s direction for us, and hold ourselves exclusively to the standard of His Holy Word. Thank you all for the forum.
Your brother in Christ,
Eric
February 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Really? Referring to churches/pastors that teach theologically non-controversial positions on sex as “prurient” and “circus church” is what someone who has a balanced view of sex does?
Also, that reference was to a general pattern, not just this one single article.
Having sex whenever you feel like having sex would be the definition of “lots of sex” wouldn’t it?
February 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Ok…why is it such a BAD thing to get people to come to church?
What happened to ‘going out into the streets and compell them to come in’?
Doesn’t scripture clearly spell out that we are to go out and get them?
Not sitting on our collective hands, singing hymns and talking about how holy and righteous we are.
The ‘Church’, as most put it, is NOT what church was meant to be anyway. But..that is another discussion.
Our job is to go out and get them to come in and get them ready for the ‘marriage supper’.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
eric,
I think on a lot we agree. However I’m still wondering how this sensationalizes and titillates? Also, (I think) Tim is saying, as long as two people can have sex frequently (apart from health issues, being apart, etc) they should. As far as having “great” sex- I don’t who decides that.. but when is sex not great?
Jimmy- I sorta had the same thoughts with PB comments- what’s so wrong with getting people in the church?
February 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Is Relevant Church using Viagra as a sacrament?
I mean for the married guys, of course.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Todd Friel of Way of the Master Radio that crn posted. sheesh he is annoying. it’s like nails on a chalkboard.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Way of the Master radio complaining about another ministry? What? I’m shocked! Shocked!
February 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ok, So I want to make sure this is correct, No one who is complaining about and disparaging this church has talked to anyone on staff or heard them preach at all? Is that right? So John Chisam, you have no idea what this guy preaches about? Does that sum up your position?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Joe,
I only know what he has written and has said on what he has posted on his website, and what he said on Fox News, which was that he preaches on contraversial subjects for the purpose of promotion.
I still wonder why he has to tell singles not to have sex, shouldn’t that either be assumed, or disciplined if he knows it is happening?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ok, Thank you John, for admitting that you have never heard the man preach nor have you talked to him. I appreciate your candor.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I wasn’t able to participate in this “rousing discussion”…I was busy doing–well, you know (29 more days to go).
Joe Martino said: “What positions aren’t acceptable?” Joe, you quick-witted, funny man!
February 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
As far as I’m concerned, how and what he preaches is irrelevant to my argument. It’s not the content of his teaching I take issue with (how could I, having not heard it?!) It’s the principle of using sex to sell church that I take issue with, and having seen the poster and read the blurb on their site, that is exactly what they are doing.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
On the same subject but from a different aspect (i.e. not necessarily dealing with the relevant church), I think that in some respects, using sex to sell a more involved interaction with the church is just fine. I do not mean the use of images that arouse. I mean the draw of healthy sexual relationships and the benefits, growth, enjoyment, etc. that brings to peoples lives. This includes single people (abstinance isn’t a bad thing, treating other women like your sisters is a good thing) and married couples (sex is good, healthy communication is good, treating eachother like the other is more important is good and good for the physical relationship, the oneness of it all, etc.) People (including myself) do not want a religion or a faith that is full of anger, spite, repressed emotions, repressed sexual needs among married individuals, somberness, and other negative feelings. People want and God promises love, joy, peace, freedom, and other wonderful and attractive possibilities for life (for those who trust in Christ).
February 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
PB,
I think the point of him telling singles to not have sex was to be clear- sex is for married people, also he said the whole habit forming thing in 30 days (which the ODMs have tended to skip over…) also, if these people just attend church and aren’t members or christians yet… it’s kind of hard to disciple them yet. and you can make a blanket statement that if they aren’t christians are single, they are having sex.
Christian, (I’m not abbreviating your name to CP!)
Very good points. That’s why I like talking about sex in church in a balanced way- it actually says sex is good, not just don’t do it.