182 thoughts on “Teaching youth about virginity and forgiveness via Todd Friel”
Todd Friel is well what can I say? I think not blasting kids for “moral” failings (sin) and offering understanding and restoration is a good thing. I don’t buy the confess and forgive and be restored model for the rank and file in the industry, and upper management does not need to repent because they are well upper management. I think Todd is mid management of one of the side industries of apologetics.
But in my experience it is the carrot and the stick, they hold out the carrot and you run to cling to Jesus and you get a bayonet in the gut, and the slow methodical turning to inflict the maximum amount of pain.
I have an issue with the word “fail,” as I don’t think it’s the most effective approach to start with if you hope to compassionately reach teens. I also have an issue with the fact that there is no discussion regarding the context of the relationship. A long-standing, loving, responsible, committed, mature relationship is WORLDS away from immature, irresponsible teenage experimentiation with sex. I understand that I am speaking outside the realm of this discussion for most, as I am not a Christian, but I have raised four great kids and I believe that if we REALLY want to reach teens (and my assumption is that we’re talking with/about older teens here, at least 16+), I think that starting with “You have failed… ” might not be the best approach if the goal is meaningful two-way communication. Just a thought.
Carol that is a very good observation, when we “sinned” in my old faith community which was every time we breathed because we did not have perfect lungs and sin soaked bodies it was all offensive to a Holy God. When people did commit the big sins such as having sex outside of marriage, thinking lustful thoughts, questioning leadership, and a wide array of thought crimes. We were told we re crucified Jesus and His blood was on our souls when we wounded Him, our sin drove the nails in His hands and you held the lance that pierced His side. We slapped Him the face and spat on Him with our evil doings. It was not to bring us back to fellowship, it was to utterly and totally humiliate and drive the fear deeper, and it worked and that was a good thing.
Got to the point I did not even take communion, thinking I had missed some thought that was evil, a lust that crossed the line from just accidently seeing a girl walk by. We were basically Hitler Jr’s in the making, biding our time to develop our inner serial killer. You are correct it does not lead to healing or restoration, and they did not want that they wanted fear. They got it.
I formed my initial and fairly favourable opinion immediately, just by watching the video and hearing what was said, taking it at face value, on its own merits. The *medium* was the familiar medium of one bloke on a stage with a microphone being videoed giving a speech to a large hall of silent “sheep”. That medium for corporate worship and delivering discipleship training is over-used in modern church. It is capable of being downright abused by vaguely heretical. corrupt and controlling career clergy, to deliver poor teaching. It is the medium of the Nuremberg rally. But it is just a medium, not a message. As such, it is morally neutral. On this occasion, the *message* was one I couldn’t fault much at first viewing.
In the video here, the speaker has an imaginary argument with an imaginary opponent, putting on a cruel-sounding voice. I think the straw man he is trying to knock down in this dumbed-down but essentially Socratic fashion, represents better the brand of purity teaching that helped to cause of the psychic harm testified to in the second link above, and that the speaker is trying to mitigate that harm rather than to exacerbate it.
Not knowing anything about Todd Friel, I only have the video to go by.
Thought #1: dang, he looks like the Christian version of Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Thought #2: I largely agree with what he said, although I wouldn’t go so far as to make it sound like one was a virgin all over again. Concepts like “secondary virginity” are nowhere in Scripture; however, a person can sin sexually, be brought to conviction and repentance, and proceed to live chastely from that point on.
Brian, I can’t even imagine what it’s like to grow up hearing only how awful you inherently are, due to the sheer fact that you are alive. I’m so sorry you (and any of you) had to deal with that! Children (in ANY faith, in ANY culture) should grow up amid absolute love. They should be told how amazing they are, due to the sheer fact that they are alive, and they should know that no matter what, they are loved. It seems absolutely UN-Christian like (and inhumane) to raise children with the notion that they carry original sin and must repent for it. They cannot even begin to understand that concept! Children should be raised with the notion that they are amazing and beautiful and loved absolutely. The more I read about what is done in Jesus’ name, the more I think he would just be pissed! How can the Bible be SO misconstrued?
Carol, you touched on something that is foundational for many Christians – so much so that “failure,” or one’s “sin nature” seems to be part of every conversation. Some doctrines focus on this particular issue more than others. Friel comes from that camp, so it doesn’t surprise me to see him use the word failure in that context.
One issue that concerns me regarding some of the teaching about sex is that it is evil, bad, not pure, etc, when they are young teens/adults, and then overnight (with a marriage certificate), it’s so good. I’m not sure that presentation has worked out so well in the long run.
NJ – Second virginity is not in the Bible, but there are numerous verses in the Bible that discuss that when we confess and He forgives us, he doesn’t remember our sins anymore. I think that is the principle of that idea. If God doesn’t remember the sin of fornication, then it is as if the forgiven sinner is a virgin once again. That makes sense to me. I would think this would be an encouragement of the love of God towards the young person who had failed.
Yes, Julie, the “overnight with a marriage certificate” thing is truly baffling to me. My parents always talked about sex as “a very beautiful thing” (I use quotes because we used to actually *tease* my mom by repeating her words jokingly!) WHEN IN THE CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY. That was the crux of the conversation (and yes, it was a conversation, not a decree), not the piece of paper. I didn’t have sex until I was in college because in high school I couldn’t honestly say all three of those things were part of the relationships. There was no doctrine, no hard and fast rules, no stigma – just realistic, respectful conversation and suggested “guidelines.” I believe to this day that if adults really want to reach youth, there needs to be a two-way respectful conversation, not a bunch of hard and fast rules just waiting to be broken, followed by guilt and soul-crushing punishments.
I believe to this day that if adults really want to reach youth, there needs to be a two-way respectful conversation, not a bunch of hard and fast rules just waiting to be broken, followed by guilt and soul-crushing punishments.
Some, no matter how you present it, will say that in the Christian context, there is no way of escaping the rules/consequences. And to a point I agree, but this is also something that is applicable outside of Christianity – ie, if one is promiscuous, many times there are health consequences because of that behavior.
In the Christian realm there are spiritual consequences, too, but how to present it in balance and not paint God out to be evil, but a God who wants His people to be free from the enticement of sin is important. Christians seem to get very hung up on this virginity thing and I yet don’t hear them harp on other things nearly as loud (abuse, anger, etc).
In my humble opinion, if we would *all* just stay out of the bedrooms of *consenting adults* (and have respectful and mature conversations with teens), the world would be a more peaceful and less judgmental place.
I haven’t heard of this man, but what he is saying is a huge improvement on what my generation was told. (I am 57). Basically sex was a taboo subject. I am in the lucky minority that had a mom who would at least talk about it. Information is power. I believe I “waited” because I was curious and read everything I could about sex and talked to sexually active friends. I had no illusions about “the first time”. Actually it wasn’t that great, but I knew practice makes perfect (or so I hoped, at 26 I thought maybe I had atrophied from lack of use :-)) . I felt “safe” with my husband and free to experiment without worrying about rejection. (Married 31 years).
I waited, because I wanted to, end of story. Taking the mystery about it away helped and I wanted to protect my heart. However, most Christians don’t wait and probably didn’t 100 years ago. That is why we actually need to go beyond “if you do it you are forgiven”. That is a no brainier. I believe helping kids understand the risks and benefits of sex will give them more autonomy over their impulses.
I also believe teaching birth and disease control is absolutely vital. If they aren’t responsible with their decisions, they are forgiven, but still can be left pregnant, contract STDs (20% of Americans have herpes), broken hearted, traumatized (if they have no knowledge and encounter a manipulative pastor!, and possibly could have been prevented with open communication. Also no sex talk is “values free”. You kids will learn something about all kinds of sex, some true and some urban myth. Educate yourself parents! It is shocking what young kids are visually exposed to and they need to trust you won’t shame them if they come to you.
It might be difficult, but worth it. You may hear things you have never heard. Did you know “man in a canoe” is the popular word for clitoris? Heck, I didn’t even know what clitoris meant back in the day and I certainly didn’t know I had one. I know this is kind of graphic and JA you of course can censor this, but it is vital we stay informed and not show shame or embarrassment over matters dealing with your kids’s bodies and activities.
MAKE YOUR HOME A NO SHAME HOME! Giving your kids information is NOT the same as giving permission. If you can start the conversation early enough and appropriately enough, your kids will at least know your truth and values before someone (usually their own age) tells them half formed ideas. They may or may not wait until marriage, but they will have the best information possible when they can go to a trusted parent. I always say “I waited and am glad, but remember if you chose to have sex, be educated and informed.” I saw too many friends hurt by poor choices because no one in their family made the subject safe to talk about.
The comments here are generally really excellent, in my opinion.
A further thought from me: no *child* needs to be taught how to “be” a virgin. He or she was born a virgin and is already used to being a virgin, which seems normal, to a child. What an *adolescent* or a *young adult* might need, is sex and relationships education that will help him or her to decide to *remain* a virgin.
(I am using an ethical definition of “virgin” here, not a biological definition. The biological definition of a virginity – an intact hymen – is something women have but men don’t, which a rapist can take away, or which can even be lost riding a bicycle or a horse. I am using the term to refer to *ethical* virginity, the state innocence of never yet having had *consensual* carnal knowledge, whether male or female.)
The most important teaching is probably about how to *think* about when carnal knowledge is “lawful” in a biblical sense, and when it isn’t. It’s all very well saying that carnal knowledge is lawful within marriage, but not otherwise. But that requires one to define what it is to be “married” in the first place. The whole of the “western” world seems to be in utter turmoil about that, nowadays!
Are a couple “married” when they have (for example) what Carol Snider’s mother called, “A CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY” kinda nice thing going on between them? There is plenty of scope for teenaged self-deception in this admittedly attractive definition, even though it captures prettily some of the spirit of the Christian understanding of the state of marriage.
But would a more cautious, conservative approach that Carol’s mum’s be any safer? How about defining “married” along the 1950s lines: “Two people are always married to one another in God’s eyes (and therefore allowed to take one another’s virginities) when the secular government says they are married, but never otherwise”? (In many jurisidctions, this would exclude grandparents who have been in “common law marriages” for decades.) I’m afraid that this definition introduces a whole different set of problems for the church, especially in the light of the following news story (if it is true, because it might not be; it comes from a “right wing” source that many distrust):
The ideological forces that have wanted to smash marriage, smash the family, and even to smash “patriarchy” (i.e. to separate children from their fathers – how cruel!) have only partly succeeded to date in that wicked agenda. However, they have already succeeded almost completely in a necessary first step in this wrong direction: namely, destroying any society-wide or even church-wide consensus as to the definition of “marriage”. Yet marriage (whatever that means) is the only mutual relationship that many Christians say renders carnal knowledge lawful, a mutual marital duty and a joy that each half of a couple owes to the other (where possible), rather than the serious sin that carnal knowledge is whenever (they say) the state of “marriage” is absent.
We can expect teenagers to be as confused as to what “marriage” is as their parents’ and grandparents’ generations are. They can be predicted often to rationalise as righteous on Saturday night (because my steady boyfriend or girlfriend and me *are* “married” in God’s eyes, because we are “committed” to one another), behaviour they later repent of in tears, on Sunday morning. The guilt trip, destructive as this is, is not the least harmful consequence of this cognitive dissonance roller-coaster. Her false rape allegation, or his false “made-to-penetrate” accusation, as a more self-acquitting rationalisation than, “I failed, I fell, I consented. Lord restore me!”, is even more dangerous, to the party who was slower to salve his or her conscience at the other’s expense, by withdrawing his or her consent *retrospectively*.
I don’t know that Ann and I would agree on everything, but it is worth noting that even the most “innocent” of children–a category that mine appear to be in so far–can discuss things like what the advantages and disadvantages of things like the HPV vaccine, condoms, and the like. They know they’re waiting on Gardasil not because of objection to the idea, but rather because it’s rated as effective out five years and I want it to be effective when they might actually need it. They understand that there are a bunch of diseases out there, many of which are not stopped by condoms, and the like.
You can be open without violating your children or Scripture. I’ve personally been noting to my kids that the way they act towards the opposite sex shows the world a picture of how Christ relates to the Church. That, and other things, will help them if and when they are confronted by a predator.
His video is better than a lot of what I hear from the purity movement, but it unfortunately stops short of the gospel of grace. Everyone who belongs to Jesus already has forgiveness for all sins, past-present-future. (Colossians 2:13-14.)
Living in grace does not lead to licentiousness; it leads us to conformity with Christ.
About 20 years ago, I read a book about secondary virginity. At that time, I thought that the author was insane. Now I fully agree that theories such thing as…. secondary virginity.
I am on my phone and deleted your comment about the typos. Normally I can fix them from my phone, but the app is acting funky or my connection is bad. I’ll fix it when I get out of this building. Julie Anne.
Carol nailed it in my opinion. >>>WHEN IN THE CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY<<< In the church, sexual sin is put in the context of going outside boundaries supposedly set by Scripture. But wrong ought to be defined as going outside the boundaries of love, responsibility, and maturity. Since one who is married can have loveless and irresponsible sex, this should be the focus. Scripture actually never spells out that sex outside of marriage is sin (the word "porneia" is not "fornication"). When the focus is only on a sex act, not on being a loving and responsible person, then "sin" is misconstrued to be merely violating some moral code. Notice in the video, there's no talk of sin being uncaring and unselfish in relationships, it's all about physical sexual sin. I think the speaker does a great job of showing there's grace to those who supposedly "fail," but the definition of fail apparently has nothing to do with lacking love, responsibility, and maturity. To fail is just having sex. What's worse? Two unmarried 19-teen-year-olds having a loving, responsible relationship that includes sex or two married people in a sexual, physical, or emotionally abusive relationship?
By the way, what's with the "Wretched" signs all over the stage!?
Thanks, Tom. I see it’s a pretty standard Calvinist view of man… wretched, depraved, original sin. Definitely don’t agree with this statement: “Until a man or woman recognizes that they are indeed wretched, they cannot appreciate the cross.” What do others think? He says he got it from John Newton’s Amazing Grace, “…that saved a wretch like me.” John Newton wasn’t talking about children or teens or people in general being wretches but he being one because he was a slave trader who dehumanized people. The dangerous part of this message, I believe, is that it totally eliminates the concept that we are created in the image of God and have inherent goodness. Doesn’t mean we don’t need to be saved (re-connected with God), just that part of the good news is that we are products of a good God and God is on our side.
I don’t have a problem with “wretched” in the sense of being sinful and in need of a Savior. A problem I see in neo-Calvinism is to define us as wretched and nothing else, even after coming to know Christ. I think perhaps they view it as being humble, and recognizing that God doesn’t love is because we are good or do good, but in spite of our sins. But there is more to the story than just our sinfulness (such as being bearers of the image of God, even if imperfectly), and it seems that neo-Cals too often miss the rest of the story.
Not a comment on the video, but this is the first religious “public figure” I’ve seen depicted here who I actually know (or knew) personally. We’d talk from time to time, and he seemed like a legitimately decent guy with a passion for evangelism. He didn’t seem like a sanctimonious prig. I knew him when he first started working his way into reformed theology. I haven’t seem him in years and have lost touch, so I hope he’s doing well and hasn’t slid into a cruel strain of Calvinism or smug purity. If he has, it’d be against the character I knew a decade ago when he was a nobody like me.
What Todd Friel said was much better than what I heard growing up. I was told if I ever fooled around that I could pack my belongings and get out of the house. This came from a woman who was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive. (And who ended up cheating on my dad.)
Why do some people make such a big deal out of this one “issue,” yet give the sins in their own life a pass? Teens are not blind and stupid. They hone in on hypocrisy like flies to honey.
Todd Friel and Ray Comfort taught me that God loved us through his actions by dying for us, but has no affection for any of us whatsoever/doesn’t love us with his heart. According to Todd, God merely puts up with us because he dislikes us, even after we are born again. And no, I did not misunderstand him – I went to him for clarification, in despair, and he refused to backtrack his statements or confirm that God truly loves me/us. It really messed up my head for about five years, back before I realized there was absolutely no reason for me to listen to or believe anything he says.
Michael Camp’s comment–not to pick on him–illustrates to me the difficulty a lot of us have in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He uses something off a red herring argument in trying to compare a “loving and responsible” unmarried couple engaging in sex with an abusive married relationship.
Now one does not have to condone abuse in marriage (I certainly do not) to note that there is nothing loving or responsible about sex outside of marriage. When you consider that almost all such relationships fail, along with the likelihood of STD transmission, pregnancy, heartbreak (Miriam Grossman’s work), and spiritual damage done, there is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage. It seems like love–looks like what they present as “love” in Hollywood and such– but “the proof is in the pudding”, and statistically speaking, this is some really, really nasty brew. The CDC isn’t saying 100 million adults or more have been infected because sex is good, clean fun outside of marriage, no?
(if it were, have a talk with my daughters’ doctors, who are pushing Gardasil pretty hard!)
And if a couple is confident that they’ll be in the small percentage that make it–OK, then get married, no? So what we really have here is two couples sinning, and do we do better to try to compare which is worse, or do we do better pointing both to the Cross?
Which is, IMO, the big gap that most who teach on this subject. All too many, despite protestations to the contrary, are replacing Gospel with law, and very often man-made law at that. Eye on the prize, brothers and sisters.
(and again, not trying to pick on Michael, but he just happened to brilliantly illustrate a tendency when we discuss these things)
BTW, watched the video again, and apart from some reluctance to enjoy the theatrics/production values he uses, I think he’s exactly right. A couple of things of note:
1. If indeed (Ephesians 5, Revelation ?) marriage is an image of Christ’s love for the church, let’s have out with it.
2. Along the same lines, this topic deserves to be addressed at more length than 2 minutes. He’s doing pretty good in his time, but he needs to beg for more.
Michael also made a comment claiming that the Bible does not say that extramarital sex in general is sin; no, false.Take a look at Matthew 5, where Jesus notes that a man who looks at a woman to have her has committed adultery in his heart, and 1 Cor. 7, where the Word tells us that a man “acting improperly” towards his betrothed needs to marry her rather than burn in lust. In context, this means that the Bible affirms the Jewish use of the word porneia to refer to more or less any sex outside of marriage. It’s all bad.
Lots of fun before one wakes up and considers the implications, but sin nonetheless. Now I’ll recant if someone demonstrates how one can have sex with a lady without lusting after her, but after 18 years of marriage to a wonderful woman who forgave my fornication, let’s just say you’re going to have to work to prove that one to me.
Or, again; there is definite bathwater in certain parts of purity culture, but there is a baby there, too. Let’s not throw both out and dishonor God by licentiousness to avoid dishonoring Him through legalism.
“It is the medium of the Nuremberg rally. But it is just a medium, not a message. As such, it is morally neutral”
Boy, you got that right. But there are some who will argue that the medium is also part of the message because the medium communicates the perceived gravitas of the messenger. (venue, stage, mic, no challenging questions, demeanor, etc) And many times the manipulated medium becomes part of the message. (The guy in a white lab coat selling laxative on tv–that sort of thing. We are much more manipulated in evangelicalism that we can ever imagine)
“There is nothing loving or responsible about sex outside of marriage. When you consider that almost all such relationships fail, along with the likelihood of STD transmission, pregnancy, heartbreak (Miriam Grossman’s work), and spiritual damage done, there is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage.”
Not sure where to even start on this one. So that piece of paper suddenly makes a non-loving relationship a loving one (since “there is nothing loving about sex outside of marriage — and let’s agree that we’re talking *before* marriage, not *extra-marital*?!)? “Almost all such relationships fail”? That is a VERY bold statement. Stats, please? “There is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage.” So that piece of paper instantly makes for a responsible relationship, even if it’s between two nineteen year olds who have only known each other for a short time and have never had a relationship or lived independently before? Responsibility in a relationship isn’t something that happens overnight or can be suddenly acquired with a piece of paper; it is something that comes with maturity, time, and experience. I know many, many loving, responsible, mature relationships that do not include a marriage certificate. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that these couples take marriage and the responsibility of it seriously that they insist on not rushing into it without REALLY knowing each other first (and yes, I include all types of “knowledge”). Some of them live together so they can be confident of true day-to-day compatibility in things like bill-paying and sharing of household chores. That, in my opinion, IS responsible behavior. And since we’re talking about communicating with youth here, I really have to wonder how open, honest, and communicative any teen son or daughter would be with a parent who proclaims what is stated here with absolute authority. I know that my four (now adult) kids would have never shared a fragment of their lives with us if we’d mandated such absolutes. In fact, I think doing so would have only confused and hindered them. (“I love this person, I’m sure of it… but wait… I can’t trust my own emotions; my parents and church dictate my emotions!”) At what point do you trust your older teen and young adult kids to make their own decisions, responsibly and maturely? Is that mandated too by a book or a piece of paper? Honest questions here…
Todd Friel and Ray Comfort taught me that God loved us through his actions by dying for us, but has no affection for any of us whatsoever/doesn’t love us with his heart. According to Todd, God merely puts up with us because he dislikes us, even after we are born again.
Oasis,
Wow. Really? He said that? That’s quite incredible. 😦 I don’t get how he reconciles that with 1 Cor 13. Didn’t Paul talk about doing certain actions — one of which being dying as a martyr — but not having love while doing them making those actions worthless? I think love is an attitude and a disposition that bears out in actions, and at least most of the time can’t help but have an emotional component. (?)
But to say God merely puts up with us even after we are born again is astonishing and disturbing. 😦 Even if I give him the first part about not having any affection for us at all (which I’m not all that inclined to do), the second part flies in the face of what it means to be in Christ. What happened to “chosen in the beloved?” I was taught God regards us the same as He regards Christ. I don’t think the Father merely exercises certain behaviors toward the Son in His love for Him.
And aren’t these the same guys who say you have to give your heart to Jesus? I might be wrong about that. I’m not that familiar with Friel/Comfort. But even so, if God doesn’t love us with His heart, then He demands more from us than He gives to us because we are supposed to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength…. And then we are supposed to love one another as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, and as much as we do to the least of these we’ve done to Him. So this shouldn’t involve the heart, then? How can it be that we are supposed to love one another as Christ loved us, if He didn’t love us with His heart? Or how are we supposed to love Him with our hearts if He doesn’t do that for/with us?
I don’t get it. I find it sad that he says that. 😦
I realize it’s kind of beside the point of the post, but it jumped out at me.
And it occurs to me, I wonder how closely Comfort and Friel resemble, say, Tony Miano in their understanding of God’s love, and if that could be a reason Miano sets people’s teeth on edge because he sounds so harsh?
Carol, I agree. This seems to be black-and-white thinking. Nothing good can come of sex outside marriage. Hmm… anectoditily, I can think of several relationships where something good came from it…. because it was coupled with love and responsibility. I would agree that teen sex is problematic and can lead to irresponsibility and the things that Bike Bubba mentioned, but focusing on the act itself can actually encourage irresponsibility. I know Christians who rush into marriage irresponsibly because they think that is the only way to solve their “lust” problem. And what about people later in life who enter into a relationship? Are they sinning because they don’t get the marriage paper? I know many, many examples of that and the people are loving and responsible and I don’t think they would agree that “nothing loving can come out of that.”
Bike Bubba, if you look at original Greek meanings of words, Jewish culture surrounding marriage and relationships, it becomes obvious that our modern concept of “sexual immorality” does not line up. Polygamy and concubinage, for example, were accepted. David had several wives and concubines (and many others) and was never censored for it. There is no law in the Torah against it. That doesn’t make it advisable, but it does put a slant on how we interpret immorality today. Jesus was rightly talking about love and responsibility in the heart among men who coveted other men’s wives.
Actually, Lydia, as I wrote that bit about “medium” and “message”, I was aware that I was over-simplifying my argument. However, my comments are already long and complicated enough, without my striving pedantically for semantic perfection and sending others to sleep. There is a distinction between medium and message. That is what makes the old slogan “The medium is the message” non-trivial and startling.
A few years after my mother died, my father (then 78) fell in love with a woman who had recently lost her husband. They had known each other for many, many years as both couples were dear friends. It was only after my father and Mary lost their spouses that the friendship blossomed into more. They decided to live together, but not to get married, due to complex financial implications of marriage — though they DID invite both families to a “commitment weekend,” in which they professed their love and commitment and asked for our blessing.
Bike Bubba, what would you say about this? Is this an irresponsible relationship because their was no marriage certificate? Are they sinners? I would say that LOVE = FAMILY and that what’s MOST important is that they love each other, are committed to each other, and (obviously) have a mature, responsible relationship. In fact, their reluctance to actually get married stemmed from the IRRESPONSIBILITY that would have been financially.
Life is not black and white. And I must say that I have seen more problems stemming from Christians’ attempt to interpret the Bible and make black/white rules from it – yet those rules change so much among different Christians which, I think, causes so much friction within the church! I have seem so much in-fighting among Christians that I have to wonder whether maybe The Golden Rule, pure and simple, might actually be the most loving way to live. I often wonder what Jesus would say if he saw the vicious in-fighting done in his name!
Carol, you are observing in real life the problem with using the Bible as a strict Rulebook. Ironically, this is what Jesus and Paul were highlighting too. The trouble is, modern American evangelicalism is doing the same thing. You’re right. Life is not black and white, which is why we need love as our superior guideline (“Love is the fulfillment of the Law”), not trying to shoehorn this or that verse into some modern situation as if it’s an exact parallel or as if the New Testament is the new Torah. The Golden Rule should rule. Your father’s situation is a good example of how insisting on a legalistic interpretation of supposed Law can cause more harm than good.
MW Camp, you can filibuster all you want, but all I want is a simple explanation of how a man can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually, apart from rape.
If you can’t explain that, you lose. Matthew 5:28. Sorry, friend, but this is not complicated. Sex, Biblically speaking, is for marriage.
So here’s a monkey wrench thrown into this black/white, all-about-the-rules approach: My father and Mary *did* eventually get married – certificate, and all. 🙂 The final reason is actually kinda fun: these 80-somethings got tired of calling each other “my boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other”! They were committed to each other for life, so they got married and just made separate legal/financial arrangements with money and holdings from their past. HOWEVER, due to my dad’s prostate cancer, that marriage can never be consummated. Now, is it a true marriage? How do all those black and white biblical laws apply to all situations?
And, to address your first question, BB, a man can’t have sex without desiring her sexually! Sex is, in my mother’s words, “a very beautiful thing” and God made human beings beautifully sexual – with or without a piece of paper. It is human responsibility and maturity (not a piece of paper) that determine how to express that sexuality.
Bike Bubba, I’m not sure what you mean by your question. I’m not trying to win or lose but get to original meaning of the scriptures. You phrased that question as if I must prove a man can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually. Is this your interpretation of Jesus’ “look at a woman with lust?” The problem is, this is a lot more complicated than you think when you get inside the cultural and linguistic minds of Jews in the first century. “Woman” in Jesus’ teaching is probably talking about a married woman not a single woman. Adultery to the Jews for a man was taking another man’s wife. Jesus was saying this can happen in your mind and is just as bad. He wasn’t talking about just having sexual desire or being attracted to someone. Jewish men could have sexual desire for single women and not sin. That’s just being human. The sin was wanting to take for yourself sexually what belonged to another. This interpretation fits better with the original Greek and Deuteronomy 21:11 where Jewish men were told they could take captive women as their wives: “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house…” Simply having sexual desire for a person, in and of itself, is not wrong.
All of this brings up for me the recent Duggar girls’ weddings. Jim Bob (the dad) orchestrated the courtships of those girls, mandating that the couples would share only side hugs and be fully chaperoned until engagement, and then they would only hold hands until the wedding day. While I believe that the couples probably do love each other (as well as any two young people can under the watchful eye of authoritarian parents), I do not believe that they KNOW each other anywhere near well enough to get married.
How is it that any sexual contact whatsoever is regarded as sinful and dirty until magically, on the wedding night, sex is wonderful and GO FOR IT! I don’t get the feeling that these couples get any sex education at all, in regards to not only understanding and embracing their own sexuality, but in the actual how-to’s of a mutually satisfying sexual partnership. The girls’ sexuality was never their own; daddy “owned” it until the wedding night. How are these couples supposed to KNOW each other suddenly, after only experiencing their first kiss (probably ever) that morning? This seems completely unnatural to me and it seems that too much is expected of these couples – unless the only expectation is that the wife “lie there” and await the first of many God-granted pregnancies. I’d like to think that these couples spend some time lovingly and freely exploring their own sexuality, free from guilt and free from daddy’s control, but it seems that, from day one, the wife becomes a baby-making machine and that control of her is simply passed from daddy to hubby.
I know this is an extreme example, but I wonder how the church condones this as healthy.
You cannot get to an average number of six sexual partners if the vast majority of sexual relationships outside of marriage don’t fail. You’ll also find, if you care to look up the data, that such relationships are more likely to end in divorce if they ever do get to marriage, they are three times more likely to have domestic violence, they fill our prisons with their illegitimate children, they fill our doctors’ offices with STD cases, and they fill the ranks of the poor and welfare recipients.
The reason for all this is simple; while marriage doesn’t make an unloving relationship loving, it’s not just a “piece of paper”, but rather is a legally enforceable contract that is also generally respected and enforced in churches. Most participants embrace that provision and are better for it; and the law (and sometimes churches) step in when one participant does not. Hence the results for marriage are strikingly different from the results of fornication.
In the case you mention, let’s ask a simple question; do your father and his lady friend have a a legally enforceable contract to provide for the other?
Answer: no. So yes, it’s sinful, period, according to the Bible, and senior centers are reporting skyrocketing STD rates among seniors as they pretend that God can be mocked in this matter.
This may seem harsh, but consider that (Ephesians 5, the prophets of the OT, Revelation) God pictures His love for Israel and the church as a marriage relationship. So fornication is not just a human crime; it is a rejection of the created order.
And yes, these things are black and white, just like many other things, like gravity, supply and demand, and such. Suffice it to say–see the evidence above–that we ignore these realities at our peril.
BB, separate responsible relationships from irresponsible relationships. The latter are more likely end in STDs and later divorce, the former not. Lots of marriage relationships end in divorce too. Now does that make marriage wrong?
BB, if this is black and white, explain to me why God didn’t condemn having two wives in the OT, but only condemned showing favoritism to one over the other; Deut. 21:15 – “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.” Why didn’t God just say, having two wives is an abomination or something like that?
MW; the problem with your argument is that if you want to argue that the Bible condones sex outside of marriage, you’ve got to deal with the fact that Matthew 5:28 clearly says that lusting after a woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart, and thus having sex with her would qualify as adultery/fornication as well.
So to defend your premiss that the Bible does not ban fornication, you have to argue that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually. Again, good luck with that one.
It should also be noted that, ahem, the Bible is printed in black and white, not shades of gray, and therefore it says certain things fairly emphatically. If you do not believe Christ when He tells you that lusting after a woman is wrong, you at the same time are unlikely to believe Him when He tells you how to be saved. You are in great danger, MW.
Carol: it may seem odd that a couple can have a happy marriage if they do not “test drive” each other first, but is that not exactly what the Bible records of Isaac and Rebekah? Of Adam and Eve? Of Jacob and Rachel? For that matter, are the arranged marriages in India and elsewhere less, or more, likely to end than those here? Was the divorce rate higher in the past, when more courted in a similar way to the Duggar ladies, or is it higher today?
Answers: yes, yes, yes, Indian marriages have a much lower divorce rate, and the divorce rate was far lower in the U.S. So it would seem that once a couple and their families determine compatibility and enter into an enforceable contract, sex generally is a pretty straightforward matter.
Which is really, of course, what the fornicator is telling us. He is not going to bother with others helping him figure out compatibility, or enter into a contract which protects him and his lover, but rather jumps in with whoever appeals to him at the time. It’s actually far less discriminating, no?
BB, I’m not sure how to even respond. Our worlds are obviously SO completely different!
Each of my now-adult children (25 – 30) have had previous relationships – most of them long-standing and serious and, yes, sexual. Because those relationships are in the past does not mean that they FAILED. They didn’t last because each partner was growing and maturing and getting to know not only the other person, but what they, themselves, want in life and in a relationship. In a very real sense, those relationships *succeeded* in the process of young people really getting to know themselves and relationship dynamics before they take the HUGE step of actually getting married. In all cases, everyone did just fine and moved on, knowing that having relationships is part of maturing and truly understanding themselves.
In one of my daughter’s past relationships, her bf became quite controlling months into the relationship. She had the personal confidence to say “nope, not for me” and the freedom (because they were not married) to end it – and now she knows what signs to look for to avoid a controlling, authoritarian man. All good things, right?
I believe that by putting so much emphasis on sex and making rules around it so black and white, MORE damage is actually being done. And I also believe that it is this sort of attitude that actually leads to so many sex scandals within the church. Sex scandals happen when those who create all the rules find the breaking of those rules too titillating to resist.
What if the rules were simply LOVE AND COMPASSION ALWAYS… TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED. Seems to me, a lot of people would be both happier and healthier.
MW, I am separating responsible relationships from irresponsible ones. If a man exposes his lover to the risks of sex without a contract requiring him to provide for her, he is irresponsible, period. It is you who refuses to divide in this regard.
(and regarding divorce, I already pointed out that marriage in itself does not make a relationship responsible–it is merely more responsible than not marrying)
And regarding polygamy, take a close look at Deuteronomy 21. The man was not allowed to diminish his first wife’s (first wives’) food, clothing, or marital affection. Along with the provision on inheritances, it’s not an endorsement of polygamy, but a severe restriction on it. This is especially the case when one is aware of the mitzvah (commandment) for a man to satisfy his wife (wives) sexually on the Sabbath, specifically Friday evening in the Talmuds.
In the same way I say “good luck” to you to prove that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually, I say “good luck” to the man who thinks that he can satisfy more than one wife in the few hours of a Friday evening. So you misunderstand the Torah.
Gee, thanks for the warning, BB. I interpret some verses differently than you do and now I’m in danger? Do we all have to believe the way you do, or the way evangelicals do on these issues? You come across as a condescending know-it-all but you seem to refuse to at least acknowledge it’s a good thing to get to the original meaning of scripture and that you might not have a monopoly on that. I admit, I may be wrong. Can you admit that? Maybe your interpretation is not really the right one?
As I and many others who study Jewish culture conclude, Matthew 5:28 does not clearly say that lusting (the word is “covet” in the Septuagint) after any woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart. I don’t have to argue that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her. That’s a straw man. I gave one example in the OT. Men had desire/lust for beautiful women and were not committing adultery. In Jewish culture, the word “woman” referred to married women 99 percent of the time. There was a word for single women (virgins) that Jesus did not use. Like Carol said, if mere sexual desire is sin, then we’re all doomed.
As for your premise about fornication always being condemned, one biblical scholar called translating “porneia” as fornication, as “…perhaps the most deliberately mistranslated word in the Biblical literature.” Don’t you want to get at original meaning? If a word is mistranslated, wouldn’t you want to get the accurate term? Wouldn’t that be honoring the Bible, not dishonoring it?
If the Bible is NOT shades of gray, how do you answer the question about polygamy? And, are you advocating arranged marriages now? Just because a divorce rate is low, that doesn’t mean there are happy marriages. Wouldn’t you agree? Does God want happy marriages and relationships or just a low divorce rate?
Carole, if loosening the rules around sex were a good thing, wouldn’t we expect the adverse consequences of sex to be diminished as the sexual revolution progressed? We’d expect STD infection rates, divorce rates, domestic violence, poverty, welfare dependency, and the like to go down, no?
But with the sexual revolution, I see all these trending in the wrong way. I would suggest that, as your daughter found out with the controlling boyfriend, that sex without commitment tends to lead to abuse and hurt. We are programmed for marriage by our Creator.
And love? Given that fornication leads to poverty, welfare, crime, STDs, domestic violence, and such, I simply cannot call it “love” when a person advocates premarital or extramarital sex. “Hate” is closer to the truth, because it’s so damaging.
@ mwcamp:
Rest assured there are many of us out here in the Christian world who opt for a responsibly reasoned and pragmatic approach to human sexuality rather than one dictated by a singular interpretation of Scripture.
You are not alone my friend.
” I would suggest that, as your daughter found out with the controlling boyfriend, that sex without commitment tends to lead to abuse and hurt. We are programmed for marriage by our Creator.” BB
Baffled. Sex has absolutely nothing at all to do with this. He would have been controlling even if they had never had sex.
Do you suggest that she should have married him and found out he was controlling later? Wasn’t getting to know him and finding out BEFORE marriage the more responsible thing?
BB, lack of love and commitment to a person in a relationship leads to problems. We can agree on that. But the point is you can have love and commitment without being married. You love to point to problems within out-of-marriage circumstances but ignore the problems that can be in marriages–wife beating, sexual abuse, emotional control, lack of love, men oppressing women, etc. Those are problems whether one is married or not. Marriage is a grand idea, mind you. But it’s not the panacea for good relationships. Love is.
Hey, Barnabas, sad to see your sad faces. Yep, wasted many months listening to podcasts of their radio show for a while there, back in 2005-06. Don’t have exact quotes, unfortunately, and I didn’t save any of the e-mail, but yes, that is exactly what I learned from them. Apart from the constant praise of John MacArthur, every day I heard the typical “worm theology” tripe, along with endless shaming and cold, harsh depictions of God and his love (or lack thereof) for people, born again or not.
I wrote to Todd in desperation, asking him to clarify what I understood from him. Really wanted to know if God might possibly want to be as close to me as I did to him, or if God really was so very unhappy with me/us Christians and emotionally distant. I was kind of at the end of my rope, and he knew it. The man refused to give me any hope whatsoever… I had gotten the impression from Todd months before that he was overstepping his boundaries and trying to play Holy Spirit for his listeners, terrified that our belief in a “mushy” or “touchy-feely” God (words he used) would somehow grant us Christians a license to sin (which we’d appreciate), and that it would bring about false conversions. But after those months I concluded that he couldn’t speak/teach about something he didn’t know or personally experience himself.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me about loving God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength… Not easy for me to read the bible these days, and that bit in particular is very interesting to me right now. And just reading the good questions you ask is edifying… Thank you for asking them “out loud.” (Todd teaches against “asking Jesus into your heart,” if that answers one…)
MW, to “covet” is simply to desire something passionately in both the Hebrew and Greek–epithumea can be translated to desire, covet, or lust in both the LXX and NT. And even if you use covet, the thing being coveted is….sex. So your word choice makes no difference to the end meaning.
In other words, the verse means exactly what not only evangelical, but also Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other commentators say it means. You can keep on making slanderous accusations of me if you like, of course, but I’m hardly alone in this view of what the plain language of Matthew 5:28 indicates.
Oasis, that is a sad commentary on evangelicals and neo-Calvinists who take that approach. This has gotten so bad over the years that now when people talk of the love and affection of God too much they get suspect—the old cheap grace theory. Fear of false conversions is another one. As if God is going to reject someone because they didn’t believe everything just right. It’s right doctrine over a love connection. Sad.
BB, slanderous? So sorry you interpret it that way. Let’s just agree to disagree, brother. No, you’re not alone. But I don’t believe I am either. I hope we can accept each other as fellow followers of Jesus without condemning the other. I believe God loves and woos everyone regardless of their biblical interpretation or doctrine. Right doctrine is not as important as “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”
MW, I’ll be blunt here; even if I were to accept the idea of “love and commitment” being THE dividing line, what proof of love and commitment does a young lady have from her non-married sex partner, or vice versa? What legally binding sacrifices are they making?
Sorry, I’ve done a few laps around the sun, and have seen a few non-marital relationships among my friends and family, and to be blunt, apart from child support and the like, I see precious little evidence of the love and commitment you speak of among unmarried, sexually active couples. They’ll share the rent, buy roses and drinks to get the mood going, but when the fit hits the shan, there isn’t much there.
That doesn’t mean that marriage is perfect, but there are at least real measures of commitment and love beyond sex and sharing the rent.
40-something virgin here (literal virgin. I am not a “secondary virgin” or “born again virgin,” I am the true blue, real deal old fashioned no coitus ever virgin).
Was in long term serious relationship with fiancee. Broke up after several years, never had sex with him, told him that sex prior to marriage is sin. I told him very early in the relationship if he could not accept that, I’d kick him to the curb, and he could move on.
You don’t have to have sexual acts with a partner to determine if they are right for you or not.
I was able to deduce that the Ex was wrong for me with no sex being involved.
MW, to quote you: “You come across as a condescending know-it-all but you seem to refuse to at least acknowledge it’s a good thing to get to the original meaning of scripture and that you might not have a monopoly on that.”
I stand by my comments pointing out your name-calling for that reason.
Regarding the scholars who said “Oh, look the Bible doesn’t just support one man one woman”;OK, data please. Tell me where the Bible discusses men married to men in a positive way, or women married to women in a positive way?
Oh, they’re just arguing that because the Bible tolerates polygamy, that something else is fair game, too? Oh.
Reality here is that Scripture speaks pretty clearly to what sexual relationships are permitted, and which are not. Yes, theologians like John Spong and these guys try to waltz around this, but the language is not beyond our understanding.
Bible teaches that sex outside of marriage is sin.
Even though there are problems within marriage, God no where says,
“You know what? Because married people sometimes have affairs, argue, lie to each other, or abuse each other, I am now granting permission for un-married adults to have sex outside of marriage. So go to it, singles, sleep around however much you want, or with one steady partner, wheeeee.”
What proof? The same proof you get from deciding if you want to marry someone… whether you see real love and commitment. It doesn’t have to be legally binding to see real love and commitment. What proof does one get when she gets married that he will continue? Marriage doesn’t guarantee it.
Daisy, I don’t believe anyone said here that one has to have sex to determine if they are right or not. Just that sex before marriage is not ALWAYS wrong.
“Regarding the scholars who said “Oh, look the Bible doesn’t just support one man one woman”;OK, data please. Tell me where the Bible discusses men married to men in a positive way, or women married to women in a positive way?”
When debating the Pharisees, I think it was, Jesus pointed out that God’s intent for marriage was one man, one woman when he referenced Adam and Eve in Genesis.
Fornicators in the Old Testament were to be stoned to death. Women had to be able to prove, via soiled newly bed sheets, that they were virgins, if the new husband disputed their virginity, the sheets would serve as proof that yes, they were.
Matt. chapter 19,
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?…
I notice that Jesus did not refer back to Solomon and Solomon’s many wives. Or David’s concubines. The intent of God, apparently, for relationships of the martial, intimate sort, was for one dude, one dude-ette….. not one dude married to 56 women, or two dudes married to each other, or two ladies married to each other and a ping pong table.
Deut 22
16 “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her;
17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 “So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him,…
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
MW said,
“Daisy, I don’t believe anyone said here that one has to have sex to determine if they are right or not. Just that sex before marriage is not ALWAYS wrong.”
Er, yeah, some one above was saying her kids having sex prior to marriage helped them to learn and grow about who they are, and what they want in a relationship and blah blah, etc.
And yes, sex before marriage is ALWAYS WRONG. If it wasn’t, I would have been doing the nasty with my ex BF years ago. Bible does not support pre marital sex at all. See my post above. OT demanded stoning to death for pre marital sex. God is not cool with it.
…which neither validates nor invalidates the “sex before marriage OK” AND the “sex before marriage NOT OK” stances. In fact, what it says to me is that sex before marriage is pretty much a NON-issue. Daisy didn’t need it to decide whether the relationship was right for her. My point: too much is made of sex by those who deem themselves the authority on the matter (be it pastor, daddy, or even partner).
carol said, “what it says to me is that sex before marriage is pretty much a NON-issue.”
You’re (unless I am mixing you up with another commentator in this thread?) fine with encouraging people having sex before marriage to determine if their partner is “right for them” or as a “learning experience.” – That can be your personal view, but the Bible does not support pre martial sex, regardless of reason or motivation or outcome.
Carol, you can argue that a man would be controlling even without sex. Yes, absolutely, and that’s why cultures around the world have traditionally used friends and family to vet potential marriage partners, no? I remember a case where a friend of my wife’s walked away from a relationship because her fiance showed no interest in conversing with my wife and I. The friend figured that if we weren’t good enough for her fiance, neither would she be, so to speak. And it was a whole lot easier because they hadn’t had sex–and it does bond, no?
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”
40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.
41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[a] and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”
43 Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.
44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
I get a huge kick out of the type of sinners that Jesus embraced.
Jesus does redeem prostitutes, by washing their sins away. Gasp, he even invited one into His inner circle.
My goodness, when He resurrected whom did He reveal himself too?
Mary Magdalene, a mere women, she was His beloved, a completely redeemed whore. And because she had been forgiven for so very much, she loved Him with a
extravagant love.
All this discussion on sexuality, purity, is really missing the point IMO of God’s love for virgins & non virgins. Perhaps, we should leave the judging alone to God.
To clarify, I am not saying that people who have sex out of marriage are prostitutes or whores. Nada, never.
My point is everyone should mind their own business, each will give an account.
I will err on the side of mercy because He has been so dang merciful to me, and then there is that little gem in James: “There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you.”
Daisy, you miss the point. No one said that’s what God said: “sleep around however much you want.” People are arguing that sex outside of marriage is acceptable when there is love, commitment, and responsibility.
BB, I’m entitled to my opinion. You came across that way, to me. Sorry, if that offends you.
So, you want data that the Bible doesn’t teach one-man-one-woman but that its teaching on marriage is complex and confusing? You must be kidding. You don’t know all those litany of verses? Maidservants given to husbands because wives are barren? Heroes of the faith having more than one wife? Concubines?
No, the Bible doesn’t point out men married to men or women married to women. Neither does it mention or condemn lesbianism once in the OT. Or, that’s it’s okay for single women to adopt kids. There’s much that isn’t in the Bible that Christians have no trouble accepting today. But it does condone polygamy and not just tolerate it and never condemns it. The point being, there’s also much in the Bible that Christians don’t accept today. It works both ways.
From Daisy: “You’re fine with encouraging people having sex before marriage to determine if their partner is “right for them” or as a “learning experience.”
I don’t encourage nor discourage. My kids are responsible adults and I trust and respect their mature, adult decisions.
Granted, I throw a bit of wrench into this discussion because I am not beholden to any dogma or doctrine, but it seems to me that there are a variety of voices and opinions worthy of respect and attention. Yes?
“Granted, I throw a bit of wrench into this discussion because I am not beholden to any dogma or doctrine, but it seems to me that there are a variety of voices and opinions worthy of respect and attention. Yes?”
Yes, Carolsnider.
Carol, I would seem to be coming upon your, and MW’s, theological bent. My response to the video is this:
1. Is it impossible that the sin of the Sodomites would manifest itself in multiple ways? Jude 7 points to sexual immorality as a cause for their punishment as well–and it’s interesting that the speaker ignores this passage, as it emphasizes the traditional understanding.
2. I would agree that the Torah in Leviticus does not in itself prove that something is wrong. However, the fact that Romans 1 speaks of the same problem indicates that there is a continuity of thought, and it is worth noting that Romans 1 appeals to the created order.
3. Regarding the analysis of 1 Cor. 6:9 /1 tim 1:9-10 (arsenokoitai and malakoi), the speaker ignores cases where adults were involved in homosexuality, like the Band of Thebes, Socrates’ affair with Alcibiades, and the like. So, as we would guess from Romans 1 (which notes that men lusted for one another), Paul appears to be pointing to the nature of adult homosexual relationships, not pointing merely to abuse of teen boys. FWIW, “arsenokoitai” translates directly to “man-bedders”, and “malakoi” to effeminate–almost precisely the stereotype that prevails today, no?
Probably just as important is the fact that in Scripture, from the prophets to Ephesians 5 to the Gospels to Revelation, marriage is used as a picture of God’s love for the Church and Israel, always portrayed as a bride. So same-sex relationships damage that, too.
And hey–let’s be blunt here–it was a dangerous behavior even before AIDS, as the rectum is full of e coli and rips a lot easier than a vagina. So just as STDs, unwed parenthood, and the like are a warning from Nature about unwed heterosexual fornication, wouldn’t we infer the same from the consequences of homsexual sex?
MW, you are again missing the point. Where in the Bible is polygamy or concubinage encouraged? You will find plenty of polygamy and concubinage in the Bible, and you will find strict limitations on polygamy, but you will find no endorsement of either, and definitely no endorsement of any same-sex sexuality.
You will, however, find a lot of examples of the disasters that attended concubinage and polygamy–wives fighting over their husband(Sarah/Hagar, Rachel/Leah), children killing each other for the inheritance(sons of David), children selling each other into slavery(Joseph’s sons), the children of concubines taking vengeance on the “rightful” heirs (e.g. Abimelech), idolatry from Solomon’s wives, the murder of John the Baptist…..
….it is as if God were telling us that we are best off married to one person of the opposite sex.
Gail, Mary Magdelene is not listed in Scripture as a whore, but rather demon-possessed. Now certainly Jesus did reach out to whores, pagans, tax collectors, and the like, but it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin. Let’s not forget, as Paul Harvey would tell us, “the rest of the story.”
BB, I gave you one example where polygamy is encouraged with a limitation on favoritism. Every place where polygamy is mentioned, there is a chance for God or Moses or the prophets to condemn it, but they never do, with the exception of Solomon being told not to have excessive materials, including wives (listed with things like horses). He’s not told “have only one wife” because to be consistent he’d also say “have only one horse.” (Also, warned about foreign wives, not Hebrew wives). Gideon, David, and several others are praised for many things (David was condemned for adultery, not taking another wife).
David, when rebuked by Nathan, was actually told that God gave him his several wives and would have given more… so why did he have to steal someone else’s?
“Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.” Murder and stealing someone’s wife is condemned. Polygamy is encouraged.
Traditionalists read right over this stuff without thinking it through. As for sins within multiple-wives marriages, well, I see no differentiation in scripture that says… “See all the terrible sins polygamy brings? And all the ones who were monogamous were blameless?” That is not explicit in scripture. If it is “as if God was telling us so,” then why didn’t spell it out in the Torah? Read the whole list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus (Ch. 18) and you won’t find “Thou shalt not have more than one wife.” In fact, it’s fascinating that verse 19 says, “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during her monthly period” rather than “Do not have sex with your wife during her period.” Each prohibition actually doesn’t mention it like they were monogamous, but “Do not have sexual relations with…” rather than just a simple, “Only have sexual relations with your one wife” and “Do not marry the following relatives.”
I find it interesting how some people regard the Bible as if life today were exactly as it was thousands of years ago and as if all laws set forth two thousand years ago also apply today. We don’t, for example, separate our cloths or ban menstruating women to a tent or avoid curves in our haircuts. And we don’t generally condone polygamy. Yet, I often see Christians dissect Bible verses with absolute scrutiny and certainty, as if they were written yesterday and as if they apply in totality to our current lives. How can that realistically work?
Carol, I’m not trying to make the case that polygamy is okay for today, but rather that it was accepted in the Bible and never condemned. That fact just shows that the theology of sex and marriage today can’t just be taken literally from the Bible and applied “in totality to our current lives.” The culture was so different from ours, we need to see what it meant back then, to see how it might apply today… if it does at all—often it doesn’t, because I believe it shouldn’t be used as a universally-applicable Rulebook.
To answer your question directly, it can’t work because the cultural settings are so different. But there is a place to dissect what the Bible teaches to bring historical accuracy and scriptural honesty to the table when we have modern discussions on what constitutes “biblical” marriage for example and whether gay marriage is okay. Traditionalists always make claims that the Bible teaches clearly on monogamous marriage and one-man-one-woman, when it really doesn’t.
I wrote to Todd in desperation, asking him to clarify what I understood from him. Really wanted to know if God might possibly want to be as close to me as I did to him, or if God really was so very unhappy with me/us Christians and emotionally distant. I was kind of at the end of my rope, and he knew it. The man refused to give me any hope whatsoever…
Oh Oasis! Cringing here! You wanted to be close with God. So now you have more of a heart for God than He has for you? What are these guys smoking? Perhaps I should feel sorry for them if this is who they think God is. Because certainly they can’t have a close relationship with God, since God is kind of a jerk and all. Problem is, they have a platform and many people are being exposed to this.
I’m concerned about this. What are the ramifications here? “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church (which He really hates, but ya know…). Just as long as you don’t get touchy feely/mushy with her, it’s all good.” How does that flesh out? Really. Do they think these things through? Yeesh.
Cringe, groan….
There is a difference between people who do things for you with no heart in it and how cold and sterile it is and how it compares to when someone does things for you because they genuinely care about you. God is holy, not sterile. Good grief. 😦
I’m glad you found my questions edifying. You are not alone in your feelings about this. If he said to me what he said to you, it would mess up my head too. Actually, I am pretty put out by it. Sounds like he was putting a stumbling block in front of you, or otherwise blocking the way and “guarding God” from you. Pretty sure God doesn’t need guarding. I’m also pretty sure the Holy Spirit knows how to convict people better than Friel does and He probably doesn’t really need Friel’s help with that.
As far as the love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc. being interesting to you, I’m glad I gave you something to work with. I’d like to hear about it if you want to share. Or not. That’s OK too. 🙂
Barnabasintraining, “Oh Oasis! Cringing here! You wanted to be close with God. So now you have more of a heart for God than He has for you? What are these guys smoking? Perhaps I should feel sorry for them if this is who they think God is. Because certainly they can’t have a close relationship with God, since God is kind of a jerk and all. Problem is, they have a platform and many people are being exposed to this.”
You are one cool dude! I would like to hear about Oasis’s journey out of all that b.s. or nonsense also.
“There is a difference between people who do things for you with no heart in it and how cold and sterile it is and how it compares to when someone does things for you because they genuinely care about you. God is holy, not sterile. Good grief. 😦
Barnabasintraining, Love this ” God is Holy, not sterile” Yes, God is love. LOVE.
Bike Bubba
OCTOBER 22, 2014 @ 3:01 PM
Gail, Mary Magdelene is not listed in Scripture as a whore, but rather demon-possessed. Now certainly Jesus did reach out to whores, pagans, tax collectors, and the like, but it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin. Let’s not forget, as Paul Harvey would tell us, “the rest of the story.”
Well, with so many Mary’s in the bible, and my Catholic understanding, I stand corrected. Glad you have repented of your sins. Good for you. I can barely lift my eyes to heaven, as I beg, Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
” But it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin.”
You sound like you have it all figured out. Thats nice, for you. FWIW, Certainty makes me puke. I was very certain for way too many years. Then this gift of being unraveled into humility & not knowing leveled me to the cross.
I notice that BB tells Michael he has to support an argument that BB assumes he is making or else he ‘loses.’
Most of us are here to discuss issues surrounding spiritual abuse and to support each other. It is bizarre to think there have to be winners and losers on this site.
This comment thread on this page has transformed how I look upon this blog. So much controversy, tolerated! And so little of it rude, ad hominem! Almost none of it controversy that I have sparked myself, as I am prone to do, because I have the annoying habit of thinking for myself, and occasionally posting comments on this or that of the many blogs I follow, that don’t necessarily fit in easily with the groupthink of the blogs concerned. Wow!!!
We are well past nit-picking about the verbatim of the “Bill Nye science guy” look-alike whose “virginity” video Julie Anne used to launch this discussion. Before long, we (or you, at least) could even end up discussing what “marriage” is, even though nobody took the bait when I commented earlier to the effect that that was (so-to-speak) the $64,000 question.
I really appreciate respectful dialogue. One way that the discussion goes downhill really quickly for me (and is likely to trigger people) is when we read stuff like, “you are in great danger if you believe or don’t believe _________.”
Feel free to agree or disagree with someone, but please don’t play judge with people’s spiritual lives here. Pray for someone, share topic-related Bible verses, have thoughtful discussion, but please allow God to do the convicting and changing of hearts without the spiritual threats. Thanks!
Almost every blog post I’ve read so far on this blog, before this one, has seemed almost calculated to draw up battle lines between celebrity career clergy of a particular brand of churchmanship (who aren’t likely to turn up here to defend themselves), and bruised and delicate survivors of alleged spiritual abuse perpetrated by them and their likes, who are here in recovery, and who are apt to mob any intruder who has questions, lest he be a “troll”.
But, with almost no help at all from me (an erstwhile alleged troll), this thread has become mighty *interesting*, because it has sparked controversy that is far more important than the usual consensus one questions at one’s peril, where the battle lines are differently drawn.
Now, that sort of nitty gritty polite debate is what the phrase “Spiritual Sounding Board” conjures up in my mind, far more than the diet of hurt people denouncing church leaders whose churches anyone is free to leave, because it took them so long to hear God telling you to leave them that leaving seems not to be vengeance enough on the leaders who are no longer followed.
People have started talking about real issues here at last, not just grumbling about personalities and theological schools of thought and caught-with-pants-down scandals.
Oh God, please grant that Julie Anne likes this development, and wants more of the same, rather than trying to get us all back on topic, the favoured topic being believers being unhappy about bad leaders of large churches they have left, with questionable doctrines, and the odd scandal here and there. Important though all that might be, if we had more time.
I’ve personally been noting to my kids that the way they act towards the opposite sex shows the world a picture of how Christ relates to the Church.
I’ll probably regret jumping into this thread (it seems to have devolved pretty badly), but:
1. Only the marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church. This DOES NOT apply to all male-female relationships everywhere. If it did, every male-female relationship would have to have a head party and a submitting party and that’s not spelled out in the Bible anywhere. If I as a female have a male friend (and I have several), he is not my “head.” Same for a woman’s male coworker, uncle, little brother, etc. The flipside is that men do not get to expect all women everywhere to submit to them. So your children’s relations with the opposite sex do not universally show the world a picture of Christ and the church, unless they’re relating to that person in a marriage. They could maybe practice a marriage-like relationship (sans sex) when engaged or seriously heading that direction, but if they just have an opposite-sex friend or we’re talking about an opposite-sex sibling, then the Christ-church imagery’s not relevant.
2. The idea that all opposite-sex relationships image Christ and the church is a patriocentric one. The Botkin sisters are especially fond of it. It’s a tool to perpetuate their strict gender hierarchy and toxic authoritarian theology, because it basically sets all men up as “heads” (i.e., authorities, in their view) over all women. So what you end up with is a kind of sex-based caste system that’s highly unbiblical.
3. Connecting all non-family male-female relationships to marriage / romance / sex, projects sexuality or potential sexuality onto innocent and platonic relationships. All that does is make a functioning relationship awkward, and risks destroying a healthy normal friendship that’s benefiting both parties. Most Christians I know who do this, either don’t allow their children to have opposite-sex friends, or insist on reading things that aren’t there into the opposite-sex friendships their children already have. This usually results in the child only having same-sex friends. In the end it basically implies that all relationships between non-family opposite-sex individuals, must of necessity be sexual / romantic at the outset, or inevitably turn sexual / romantic, which is just not true. (Hollywood doesn’t help on this front either – i.e., all the movies about “we were friends for years and I was so blind until I saw HE / SHE WAS THE ONE ALL ALONG.”)
I’ve personally been noting to my kids that the way they act towards the opposite sex shows the world a picture of how Christ relates to the Church.
Hester said: 1. Only the marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church. This DOES NOT apply to all male-female relationships everywhere.
I agree with you, Hester. I only seen Christ and the church mentioned in the Bible as a picture of husband/wife – – no other male-female relationship.
Hester said:
2. The idea that all opposite-sex relationships image Christ and the church is a patriocentric one. The Botkin sisters are especially fond of it. It’s a tool to perpetuate their strict gender hierarchy and toxic authoritarian theology, because it basically sets all men up as “heads” (i.e., authorities, in their view) over all women. So what you end up with is a kind of sex-based caste system that’s highly unbiblical.
I just got a flashback of a homeschooling family I know who told the daughters to serve their brothers as they would their fathers.
“lusting after a woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart”
If I am not married, and the woman I am “lusting after” isn’t married either, I cannot see how my lust after her could possibly be “adultery of the heart”, because admitting to her frankly that I was lusting after her, and proposing marriage to her, wouldn’t be at all adulterous, would it? If a he and a she aren’t married to other people, they obviously cannot commit adultery together literally. So how can one of them, in his or her “heart”, commit adultery with the other, even this metaphorically?
I used to drive a bunch of worldly crackheads and heroin addicts to church often. I once asked them what part of woman’s body they looked at second, if her face was pretty. Their unsaved answers were titillatingly predictable. Mine was the fourth finger of her left hand. Was I naughty even to pick a third body part to glance at, lustfully, if the ring finger gave me the all-clear? Even if this was a Christian woman? If so, then please explain how!
Barnabasintraining, thanks for your cringes! Yes, more than anything in the world, I wanted to be close to God, and the question of whether or not he actually wanted a “personal relationship” with me, as I had been taught, plagued me for a long time. I wondered if I had misunderstood God, who was tolerating me but wanted me to sort of leave him alone and keep it professional, that kind of thing. Seems silly to me now that I ever doubted the reality of my relationship with Jesus that I had known for 10+ years at the time, but I had basically handed over my mind to bad teaching about God and had my reality warped…
You are spot on about what Todd was doing and how God doesn’t need extra Holy Spirits running around. No, doesn’t seem to me that they think through much at all, and yes, they have a platform, which is why I piped up again. I hadn’t even considered what that distant view of God might say to husbands and wives. The ramifications aren’t good for anyone, and I don’t want anyone else to get lost, wandering around needlessly in a desert of smoke and mirrors for a single drop of water!
Like Gail, absolutely love what you said about God, and the difference between being sterile and actually genuinely caring about someone. Also, thanks for the “you are not alone,” that’s always good to know! Distorted views of God can lead a person away from God, even all the way to suicide, and I wish more Christians would bother to give an actual, real damn.
Loving God with all of our heart etc. is very interesting to me because I haven’t dissected or studied that at all, and it looks very shiny and full of exciting implications. 🙂
Gail, not much of a story to tell, really…went on a mad search that lasted a while, analyzing to death every single mention of love I could find in scripture…looking for any drop of water explaining the love of God…any evidence of a heart, contradicting the picture painted by Todd and his cohort. All I wanted to know was if God truly loved me or not, the way I hoped he did. But the book, and doing this, was actually not much help at first, because nothing was specific or detailed enough for me, to answer my question, and figured I needed to do an in-depth word study…
The fire started to go out, and then I read Isaiah 49:15, and it gave me a spark of hope. I tried to reason that if God said this, about…Israel? then maybe he might feel love or compassion for me, too?…as his child? Had no idea about the context, or correctness of translation, but the concept stayed with me, as I stopped my search, weary of it…
From there, it became personal…I was just beginning to work through childhood abuse, and all I can say is that God really seemed to get a kick out of shocking me with his love and support… Sorry to be vague, I have no idea how to begin to explain what he’s done for me. But he proved his heart to me all by himself, through relationship. 🙂
Seems I have to fight for this relationship, because it has been one spiritual crisis after another, one ongoing. Almost as if there is a gang of demons forever trying new ways to take God away from me. Some brilliant bloggers reminded me that God and his love/character is revealed to us in Jesus. I tune out the lies and hold onto that for dear life. This is the short version. 🙂
“I used to drive a bunch of worldly crackheads and heroin addicts to church often. I once asked them what part of woman’s body they looked at second, if her face was pretty. Their unsaved answers were titillatingly predictable.” (John)
Question: What is the difference between a non-believer and an un-believer? I see “un” used a lot in these circles and haven’t seen that before as a way of describing what I know as a non-theist or non-believer.
Ok guys! Though your discussion is interesting, most young people’s eyes would glaze over if they read the discussion. This would have no impact on a young person’s decision on whether or not to have sex before marriage.
Young people are looking for relationship, affirmation, and answers. Academic Bible discussions don’t work. It just turns into an argument where everyone wants to be “right”. We need to listen, listen and listen more. Then enter into dialogue to talk about the real questions out kids are asking.
As for 80 year olds-they have lived much longer than most of us and don’t need out advise on marriage and sex!
Ann, I totally agree. Teens will tune out (and sometimes call out, *IF* they don’t feel fearful and oppressed) communication that doesn’t feel open, honest, and genuine to them. Handing down rules and decrees from the pulpit doesn’t exactly invite open communication. Better, I think, would be to ask lots of *non-judgmental* questions and provide lots of *objective, evidence-based* information. Anything less won’t instill trust and communication.
Which prompts me to ask… Bike Bubba, are you by any chance a youth leader?
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Todd Friel is well what can I say? I think not blasting kids for “moral” failings (sin) and offering understanding and restoration is a good thing. I don’t buy the confess and forgive and be restored model for the rank and file in the industry, and upper management does not need to repent because they are well upper management. I think Todd is mid management of one of the side industries of apologetics.
But in my experience it is the carrot and the stick, they hold out the carrot and you run to cling to Jesus and you get a bayonet in the gut, and the slow methodical turning to inflict the maximum amount of pain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is not what I expected from Friel. I need to listen to it again. Maybe tomorrow after brain recovery from studying.
LikeLike
I have an issue with the word “fail,” as I don’t think it’s the most effective approach to start with if you hope to compassionately reach teens. I also have an issue with the fact that there is no discussion regarding the context of the relationship. A long-standing, loving, responsible, committed, mature relationship is WORLDS away from immature, irresponsible teenage experimentiation with sex. I understand that I am speaking outside the realm of this discussion for most, as I am not a Christian, but I have raised four great kids and I believe that if we REALLY want to reach teens (and my assumption is that we’re talking with/about older teens here, at least 16+), I think that starting with “You have failed… ” might not be the best approach if the goal is meaningful two-way communication. Just a thought.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carol that is a very good observation, when we “sinned” in my old faith community which was every time we breathed because we did not have perfect lungs and sin soaked bodies it was all offensive to a Holy God. When people did commit the big sins such as having sex outside of marriage, thinking lustful thoughts, questioning leadership, and a wide array of thought crimes. We were told we re crucified Jesus and His blood was on our souls when we wounded Him, our sin drove the nails in His hands and you held the lance that pierced His side. We slapped Him the face and spat on Him with our evil doings. It was not to bring us back to fellowship, it was to utterly and totally humiliate and drive the fear deeper, and it worked and that was a good thing.
Got to the point I did not even take communion, thinking I had missed some thought that was evil, a lust that crossed the line from just accidently seeing a girl walk by. We were basically Hitler Jr’s in the making, biding our time to develop our inner serial killer. You are correct it does not lead to healing or restoration, and they did not want that they wanted fear. They got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I formed my initial and fairly favourable opinion immediately, just by watching the video and hearing what was said, taking it at face value, on its own merits. The *medium* was the familiar medium of one bloke on a stage with a microphone being videoed giving a speech to a large hall of silent “sheep”. That medium for corporate worship and delivering discipleship training is over-used in modern church. It is capable of being downright abused by vaguely heretical. corrupt and controlling career clergy, to deliver poor teaching. It is the medium of the Nuremberg rally. But it is just a medium, not a message. As such, it is morally neutral. On this occasion, the *message* was one I couldn’t fault much at first viewing.
I have since followed the link to
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/10/08/soul-tied-harmful-spiritual-conclusions-about-sex-abuse-purity-culture-and-sex-abuse-victims/
and thence to
http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/51/
In the video here, the speaker has an imaginary argument with an imaginary opponent, putting on a cruel-sounding voice. I think the straw man he is trying to knock down in this dumbed-down but essentially Socratic fashion, represents better the brand of purity teaching that helped to cause of the psychic harm testified to in the second link above, and that the speaker is trying to mitigate that harm rather than to exacerbate it.
LikeLike
Not knowing anything about Todd Friel, I only have the video to go by.
Thought #1: dang, he looks like the Christian version of Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Thought #2: I largely agree with what he said, although I wouldn’t go so far as to make it sound like one was a virgin all over again. Concepts like “secondary virginity” are nowhere in Scripture; however, a person can sin sexually, be brought to conviction and repentance, and proceed to live chastely from that point on.
LikeLike
Brian, I can’t even imagine what it’s like to grow up hearing only how awful you inherently are, due to the sheer fact that you are alive. I’m so sorry you (and any of you) had to deal with that! Children (in ANY faith, in ANY culture) should grow up amid absolute love. They should be told how amazing they are, due to the sheer fact that they are alive, and they should know that no matter what, they are loved. It seems absolutely UN-Christian like (and inhumane) to raise children with the notion that they carry original sin and must repent for it. They cannot even begin to understand that concept! Children should be raised with the notion that they are amazing and beautiful and loved absolutely. The more I read about what is done in Jesus’ name, the more I think he would just be pissed! How can the Bible be SO misconstrued?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carol, you touched on something that is foundational for many Christians – so much so that “failure,” or one’s “sin nature” seems to be part of every conversation. Some doctrines focus on this particular issue more than others. Friel comes from that camp, so it doesn’t surprise me to see him use the word failure in that context.
One issue that concerns me regarding some of the teaching about sex is that it is evil, bad, not pure, etc, when they are young teens/adults, and then overnight (with a marriage certificate), it’s so good. I’m not sure that presentation has worked out so well in the long run.
LikeLiked by 3 people
NJ – Second virginity is not in the Bible, but there are numerous verses in the Bible that discuss that when we confess and He forgives us, he doesn’t remember our sins anymore. I think that is the principle of that idea. If God doesn’t remember the sin of fornication, then it is as if the forgiven sinner is a virgin once again. That makes sense to me. I would think this would be an encouragement of the love of God towards the young person who had failed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Julie, the “overnight with a marriage certificate” thing is truly baffling to me. My parents always talked about sex as “a very beautiful thing” (I use quotes because we used to actually *tease* my mom by repeating her words jokingly!) WHEN IN THE CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY. That was the crux of the conversation (and yes, it was a conversation, not a decree), not the piece of paper. I didn’t have sex until I was in college because in high school I couldn’t honestly say all three of those things were part of the relationships. There was no doctrine, no hard and fast rules, no stigma – just realistic, respectful conversation and suggested “guidelines.” I believe to this day that if adults really want to reach youth, there needs to be a two-way respectful conversation, not a bunch of hard and fast rules just waiting to be broken, followed by guilt and soul-crushing punishments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some, no matter how you present it, will say that in the Christian context, there is no way of escaping the rules/consequences. And to a point I agree, but this is also something that is applicable outside of Christianity – ie, if one is promiscuous, many times there are health consequences because of that behavior.
In the Christian realm there are spiritual consequences, too, but how to present it in balance and not paint God out to be evil, but a God who wants His people to be free from the enticement of sin is important. Christians seem to get very hung up on this virginity thing and I yet don’t hear them harp on other things nearly as loud (abuse, anger, etc).
LikeLiked by 2 people
In my humble opinion, if we would *all* just stay out of the bedrooms of *consenting adults* (and have respectful and mature conversations with teens), the world would be a more peaceful and less judgmental place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t heard of this man, but what he is saying is a huge improvement on what my generation was told. (I am 57). Basically sex was a taboo subject. I am in the lucky minority that had a mom who would at least talk about it. Information is power. I believe I “waited” because I was curious and read everything I could about sex and talked to sexually active friends. I had no illusions about “the first time”. Actually it wasn’t that great, but I knew practice makes perfect (or so I hoped, at 26 I thought maybe I had atrophied from lack of use :-)) . I felt “safe” with my husband and free to experiment without worrying about rejection. (Married 31 years).
I waited, because I wanted to, end of story. Taking the mystery about it away helped and I wanted to protect my heart. However, most Christians don’t wait and probably didn’t 100 years ago. That is why we actually need to go beyond “if you do it you are forgiven”. That is a no brainier. I believe helping kids understand the risks and benefits of sex will give them more autonomy over their impulses.
I also believe teaching birth and disease control is absolutely vital. If they aren’t responsible with their decisions, they are forgiven, but still can be left pregnant, contract STDs (20% of Americans have herpes), broken hearted, traumatized (if they have no knowledge and encounter a manipulative pastor!, and possibly could have been prevented with open communication. Also no sex talk is “values free”. You kids will learn something about all kinds of sex, some true and some urban myth. Educate yourself parents! It is shocking what young kids are visually exposed to and they need to trust you won’t shame them if they come to you.
It might be difficult, but worth it. You may hear things you have never heard. Did you know “man in a canoe” is the popular word for clitoris? Heck, I didn’t even know what clitoris meant back in the day and I certainly didn’t know I had one. I know this is kind of graphic and JA you of course can censor this, but it is vital we stay informed and not show shame or embarrassment over matters dealing with your kids’s bodies and activities.
MAKE YOUR HOME A NO SHAME HOME! Giving your kids information is NOT the same as giving permission. If you can start the conversation early enough and appropriately enough, your kids will at least know your truth and values before someone (usually their own age) tells them half formed ideas. They may or may not wait until marriage, but they will have the best information possible when they can go to a trusted parent. I always say “I waited and am glad, but remember if you chose to have sex, be educated and informed.” I saw too many friends hurt by poor choices because no one in their family made the subject safe to talk about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The comments here are generally really excellent, in my opinion.
A further thought from me: no *child* needs to be taught how to “be” a virgin. He or she was born a virgin and is already used to being a virgin, which seems normal, to a child. What an *adolescent* or a *young adult* might need, is sex and relationships education that will help him or her to decide to *remain* a virgin.
(I am using an ethical definition of “virgin” here, not a biological definition. The biological definition of a virginity – an intact hymen – is something women have but men don’t, which a rapist can take away, or which can even be lost riding a bicycle or a horse. I am using the term to refer to *ethical* virginity, the state innocence of never yet having had *consensual* carnal knowledge, whether male or female.)
The most important teaching is probably about how to *think* about when carnal knowledge is “lawful” in a biblical sense, and when it isn’t. It’s all very well saying that carnal knowledge is lawful within marriage, but not otherwise. But that requires one to define what it is to be “married” in the first place. The whole of the “western” world seems to be in utter turmoil about that, nowadays!
Are a couple “married” when they have (for example) what Carol Snider’s mother called, “A CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY” kinda nice thing going on between them? There is plenty of scope for teenaged self-deception in this admittedly attractive definition, even though it captures prettily some of the spirit of the Christian understanding of the state of marriage.
But would a more cautious, conservative approach that Carol’s mum’s be any safer? How about defining “married” along the 1950s lines: “Two people are always married to one another in God’s eyes (and therefore allowed to take one another’s virginities) when the secular government says they are married, but never otherwise”? (In many jurisidctions, this would exclude grandparents who have been in “common law marriages” for decades.) I’m afraid that this definition introduces a whole different set of problems for the church, especially in the light of the following news story (if it is true, because it might not be; it comes from a “right wing” source that many distrust):
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
The ideological forces that have wanted to smash marriage, smash the family, and even to smash “patriarchy” (i.e. to separate children from their fathers – how cruel!) have only partly succeeded to date in that wicked agenda. However, they have already succeeded almost completely in a necessary first step in this wrong direction: namely, destroying any society-wide or even church-wide consensus as to the definition of “marriage”. Yet marriage (whatever that means) is the only mutual relationship that many Christians say renders carnal knowledge lawful, a mutual marital duty and a joy that each half of a couple owes to the other (where possible), rather than the serious sin that carnal knowledge is whenever (they say) the state of “marriage” is absent.
We can expect teenagers to be as confused as to what “marriage” is as their parents’ and grandparents’ generations are. They can be predicted often to rationalise as righteous on Saturday night (because my steady boyfriend or girlfriend and me *are* “married” in God’s eyes, because we are “committed” to one another), behaviour they later repent of in tears, on Sunday morning. The guilt trip, destructive as this is, is not the least harmful consequence of this cognitive dissonance roller-coaster. Her false rape allegation, or his false “made-to-penetrate” accusation, as a more self-acquitting rationalisation than, “I failed, I fell, I consented. Lord restore me!”, is even more dangerous, to the party who was slower to salve his or her conscience at the other’s expense, by withdrawing his or her consent *retrospectively*.
LikeLike
I don’t know that Ann and I would agree on everything, but it is worth noting that even the most “innocent” of children–a category that mine appear to be in so far–can discuss things like what the advantages and disadvantages of things like the HPV vaccine, condoms, and the like. They know they’re waiting on Gardasil not because of objection to the idea, but rather because it’s rated as effective out five years and I want it to be effective when they might actually need it. They understand that there are a bunch of diseases out there, many of which are not stopped by condoms, and the like.
You can be open without violating your children or Scripture. I’ve personally been noting to my kids that the way they act towards the opposite sex shows the world a picture of how Christ relates to the Church. That, and other things, will help them if and when they are confronted by a predator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His video is better than a lot of what I hear from the purity movement, but it unfortunately stops short of the gospel of grace. Everyone who belongs to Jesus already has forgiveness for all sins, past-present-future. (Colossians 2:13-14.)
Living in grace does not lead to licentiousness; it leads us to conformity with Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
About 20 years ago, I read a book about secondary virginity. At that time, I thought that the author was insane. Now I fully agree that theories such thing as…. secondary virginity.
LikeLike
Jerry,
I am on my phone and deleted your comment about the typos. Normally I can fix them from my phone, but the app is acting funky or my connection is bad. I’ll fix it when I get out of this building. Julie Anne.
LikeLike
Carol nailed it in my opinion. >>>WHEN IN THE CONTEXT OF LOVE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND MATURITY<<< In the church, sexual sin is put in the context of going outside boundaries supposedly set by Scripture. But wrong ought to be defined as going outside the boundaries of love, responsibility, and maturity. Since one who is married can have loveless and irresponsible sex, this should be the focus. Scripture actually never spells out that sex outside of marriage is sin (the word "porneia" is not "fornication"). When the focus is only on a sex act, not on being a loving and responsible person, then "sin" is misconstrued to be merely violating some moral code. Notice in the video, there's no talk of sin being uncaring and unselfish in relationships, it's all about physical sexual sin. I think the speaker does a great job of showing there's grace to those who supposedly "fail," but the definition of fail apparently has nothing to do with lacking love, responsibility, and maturity. To fail is just having sex. What's worse? Two unmarried 19-teen-year-olds having a loving, responsible relationship that includes sex or two married people in a sexual, physical, or emotionally abusive relationship?
By the way, what's with the "Wretched" signs all over the stage!?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Wretched” is the name of Friel’s radio program. This link says why they call it that:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/faq.cfm
LikeLike
Thanks, Tom. I see it’s a pretty standard Calvinist view of man… wretched, depraved, original sin. Definitely don’t agree with this statement: “Until a man or woman recognizes that they are indeed wretched, they cannot appreciate the cross.” What do others think? He says he got it from John Newton’s Amazing Grace, “…that saved a wretch like me.” John Newton wasn’t talking about children or teens or people in general being wretches but he being one because he was a slave trader who dehumanized people. The dangerous part of this message, I believe, is that it totally eliminates the concept that we are created in the image of God and have inherent goodness. Doesn’t mean we don’t need to be saved (re-connected with God), just that part of the good news is that we are products of a good God and God is on our side.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with “wretched” in the sense of being sinful and in need of a Savior. A problem I see in neo-Calvinism is to define us as wretched and nothing else, even after coming to know Christ. I think perhaps they view it as being humble, and recognizing that God doesn’t love is because we are good or do good, but in spite of our sins. But there is more to the story than just our sinfulness (such as being bearers of the image of God, even if imperfectly), and it seems that neo-Cals too often miss the rest of the story.
LikeLike
That’s it exactly, Tom, they define themselves by that word and to me that makes a mockery of Christ’s death and resurrection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a comment on the video, but this is the first religious “public figure” I’ve seen depicted here who I actually know (or knew) personally. We’d talk from time to time, and he seemed like a legitimately decent guy with a passion for evangelism. He didn’t seem like a sanctimonious prig. I knew him when he first started working his way into reformed theology. I haven’t seem him in years and have lost touch, so I hope he’s doing well and hasn’t slid into a cruel strain of Calvinism or smug purity. If he has, it’d be against the character I knew a decade ago when he was a nobody like me.
LikeLike
What Todd Friel said was much better than what I heard growing up. I was told if I ever fooled around that I could pack my belongings and get out of the house. This came from a woman who was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive. (And who ended up cheating on my dad.)
Why do some people make such a big deal out of this one “issue,” yet give the sins in their own life a pass? Teens are not blind and stupid. They hone in on hypocrisy like flies to honey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Todd Friel and Ray Comfort taught me that God loved us through his actions by dying for us, but has no affection for any of us whatsoever/doesn’t love us with his heart. According to Todd, God merely puts up with us because he dislikes us, even after we are born again. And no, I did not misunderstand him – I went to him for clarification, in despair, and he refused to backtrack his statements or confirm that God truly loves me/us. It really messed up my head for about five years, back before I realized there was absolutely no reason for me to listen to or believe anything he says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Camp’s comment–not to pick on him–illustrates to me the difficulty a lot of us have in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He uses something off a red herring argument in trying to compare a “loving and responsible” unmarried couple engaging in sex with an abusive married relationship.
Now one does not have to condone abuse in marriage (I certainly do not) to note that there is nothing loving or responsible about sex outside of marriage. When you consider that almost all such relationships fail, along with the likelihood of STD transmission, pregnancy, heartbreak (Miriam Grossman’s work), and spiritual damage done, there is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage. It seems like love–looks like what they present as “love” in Hollywood and such– but “the proof is in the pudding”, and statistically speaking, this is some really, really nasty brew. The CDC isn’t saying 100 million adults or more have been infected because sex is good, clean fun outside of marriage, no?
(if it were, have a talk with my daughters’ doctors, who are pushing Gardasil pretty hard!)
And if a couple is confident that they’ll be in the small percentage that make it–OK, then get married, no? So what we really have here is two couples sinning, and do we do better to try to compare which is worse, or do we do better pointing both to the Cross?
Which is, IMO, the big gap that most who teach on this subject. All too many, despite protestations to the contrary, are replacing Gospel with law, and very often man-made law at that. Eye on the prize, brothers and sisters.
(and again, not trying to pick on Michael, but he just happened to brilliantly illustrate a tendency when we discuss these things)
LikeLike
BTW, watched the video again, and apart from some reluctance to enjoy the theatrics/production values he uses, I think he’s exactly right. A couple of things of note:
1. If indeed (Ephesians 5, Revelation ?) marriage is an image of Christ’s love for the church, let’s have out with it.
2. Along the same lines, this topic deserves to be addressed at more length than 2 minutes. He’s doing pretty good in his time, but he needs to beg for more.
LikeLike
Michael also made a comment claiming that the Bible does not say that extramarital sex in general is sin; no, false.Take a look at Matthew 5, where Jesus notes that a man who looks at a woman to have her has committed adultery in his heart, and 1 Cor. 7, where the Word tells us that a man “acting improperly” towards his betrothed needs to marry her rather than burn in lust. In context, this means that the Bible affirms the Jewish use of the word porneia to refer to more or less any sex outside of marriage. It’s all bad.
Lots of fun before one wakes up and considers the implications, but sin nonetheless. Now I’ll recant if someone demonstrates how one can have sex with a lady without lusting after her, but after 18 years of marriage to a wonderful woman who forgave my fornication, let’s just say you’re going to have to work to prove that one to me.
Or, again; there is definite bathwater in certain parts of purity culture, but there is a baby there, too. Let’s not throw both out and dishonor God by licentiousness to avoid dishonoring Him through legalism.
LikeLike
“It is the medium of the Nuremberg rally. But it is just a medium, not a message. As such, it is morally neutral”
Boy, you got that right. But there are some who will argue that the medium is also part of the message because the medium communicates the perceived gravitas of the messenger. (venue, stage, mic, no challenging questions, demeanor, etc) And many times the manipulated medium becomes part of the message. (The guy in a white lab coat selling laxative on tv–that sort of thing. We are much more manipulated in evangelicalism that we can ever imagine)
LikeLike
“There is nothing loving or responsible about sex outside of marriage. When you consider that almost all such relationships fail, along with the likelihood of STD transmission, pregnancy, heartbreak (Miriam Grossman’s work), and spiritual damage done, there is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage.”
Not sure where to even start on this one. So that piece of paper suddenly makes a non-loving relationship a loving one (since “there is nothing loving about sex outside of marriage — and let’s agree that we’re talking *before* marriage, not *extra-marital*?!)? “Almost all such relationships fail”? That is a VERY bold statement. Stats, please? “There is nothing loving or responsible about any sex outside of marriage.” So that piece of paper instantly makes for a responsible relationship, even if it’s between two nineteen year olds who have only known each other for a short time and have never had a relationship or lived independently before? Responsibility in a relationship isn’t something that happens overnight or can be suddenly acquired with a piece of paper; it is something that comes with maturity, time, and experience. I know many, many loving, responsible, mature relationships that do not include a marriage certificate. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that these couples take marriage and the responsibility of it seriously that they insist on not rushing into it without REALLY knowing each other first (and yes, I include all types of “knowledge”). Some of them live together so they can be confident of true day-to-day compatibility in things like bill-paying and sharing of household chores. That, in my opinion, IS responsible behavior. And since we’re talking about communicating with youth here, I really have to wonder how open, honest, and communicative any teen son or daughter would be with a parent who proclaims what is stated here with absolute authority. I know that my four (now adult) kids would have never shared a fragment of their lives with us if we’d mandated such absolutes. In fact, I think doing so would have only confused and hindered them. (“I love this person, I’m sure of it… but wait… I can’t trust my own emotions; my parents and church dictate my emotions!”) At what point do you trust your older teen and young adult kids to make their own decisions, responsibly and maturely? Is that mandated too by a book or a piece of paper? Honest questions here…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Todd Friel and Ray Comfort taught me that God loved us through his actions by dying for us, but has no affection for any of us whatsoever/doesn’t love us with his heart. According to Todd, God merely puts up with us because he dislikes us, even after we are born again.
Oasis,
Wow. Really? He said that? That’s quite incredible. 😦 I don’t get how he reconciles that with 1 Cor 13. Didn’t Paul talk about doing certain actions — one of which being dying as a martyr — but not having love while doing them making those actions worthless? I think love is an attitude and a disposition that bears out in actions, and at least most of the time can’t help but have an emotional component. (?)
But to say God merely puts up with us even after we are born again is astonishing and disturbing. 😦 Even if I give him the first part about not having any affection for us at all (which I’m not all that inclined to do), the second part flies in the face of what it means to be in Christ. What happened to “chosen in the beloved?” I was taught God regards us the same as He regards Christ. I don’t think the Father merely exercises certain behaviors toward the Son in His love for Him.
And aren’t these the same guys who say you have to give your heart to Jesus? I might be wrong about that. I’m not that familiar with Friel/Comfort. But even so, if God doesn’t love us with His heart, then He demands more from us than He gives to us because we are supposed to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength…. And then we are supposed to love one another as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, and as much as we do to the least of these we’ve done to Him. So this shouldn’t involve the heart, then? How can it be that we are supposed to love one another as Christ loved us, if He didn’t love us with His heart? Or how are we supposed to love Him with our hearts if He doesn’t do that for/with us?
I don’t get it. I find it sad that he says that. 😦
I realize it’s kind of beside the point of the post, but it jumped out at me.
And it occurs to me, I wonder how closely Comfort and Friel resemble, say, Tony Miano in their understanding of God’s love, and if that could be a reason Miano sets people’s teeth on edge because he sounds so harsh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carol, I agree. This seems to be black-and-white thinking. Nothing good can come of sex outside marriage. Hmm… anectoditily, I can think of several relationships where something good came from it…. because it was coupled with love and responsibility. I would agree that teen sex is problematic and can lead to irresponsibility and the things that Bike Bubba mentioned, but focusing on the act itself can actually encourage irresponsibility. I know Christians who rush into marriage irresponsibly because they think that is the only way to solve their “lust” problem. And what about people later in life who enter into a relationship? Are they sinning because they don’t get the marriage paper? I know many, many examples of that and the people are loving and responsible and I don’t think they would agree that “nothing loving can come out of that.”
Bike Bubba, if you look at original Greek meanings of words, Jewish culture surrounding marriage and relationships, it becomes obvious that our modern concept of “sexual immorality” does not line up. Polygamy and concubinage, for example, were accepted. David had several wives and concubines (and many others) and was never censored for it. There is no law in the Torah against it. That doesn’t make it advisable, but it does put a slant on how we interpret immorality today. Jesus was rightly talking about love and responsibility in the heart among men who coveted other men’s wives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, Lydia, as I wrote that bit about “medium” and “message”, I was aware that I was over-simplifying my argument. However, my comments are already long and complicated enough, without my striving pedantically for semantic perfection and sending others to sleep. There is a distinction between medium and message. That is what makes the old slogan “The medium is the message” non-trivial and startling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
LikeLike
A few years after my mother died, my father (then 78) fell in love with a woman who had recently lost her husband. They had known each other for many, many years as both couples were dear friends. It was only after my father and Mary lost their spouses that the friendship blossomed into more. They decided to live together, but not to get married, due to complex financial implications of marriage — though they DID invite both families to a “commitment weekend,” in which they professed their love and commitment and asked for our blessing.
Bike Bubba, what would you say about this? Is this an irresponsible relationship because their was no marriage certificate? Are they sinners? I would say that LOVE = FAMILY and that what’s MOST important is that they love each other, are committed to each other, and (obviously) have a mature, responsible relationship. In fact, their reluctance to actually get married stemmed from the IRRESPONSIBILITY that would have been financially.
Life is not black and white. And I must say that I have seen more problems stemming from Christians’ attempt to interpret the Bible and make black/white rules from it – yet those rules change so much among different Christians which, I think, causes so much friction within the church! I have seem so much in-fighting among Christians that I have to wonder whether maybe The Golden Rule, pure and simple, might actually be the most loving way to live. I often wonder what Jesus would say if he saw the vicious in-fighting done in his name!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carol, you are observing in real life the problem with using the Bible as a strict Rulebook. Ironically, this is what Jesus and Paul were highlighting too. The trouble is, modern American evangelicalism is doing the same thing. You’re right. Life is not black and white, which is why we need love as our superior guideline (“Love is the fulfillment of the Law”), not trying to shoehorn this or that verse into some modern situation as if it’s an exact parallel or as if the New Testament is the new Torah. The Golden Rule should rule. Your father’s situation is a good example of how insisting on a legalistic interpretation of supposed Law can cause more harm than good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MW Camp, you can filibuster all you want, but all I want is a simple explanation of how a man can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually, apart from rape.
If you can’t explain that, you lose. Matthew 5:28. Sorry, friend, but this is not complicated. Sex, Biblically speaking, is for marriage.
LikeLike
So here’s a monkey wrench thrown into this black/white, all-about-the-rules approach: My father and Mary *did* eventually get married – certificate, and all. 🙂 The final reason is actually kinda fun: these 80-somethings got tired of calling each other “my boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other”! They were committed to each other for life, so they got married and just made separate legal/financial arrangements with money and holdings from their past. HOWEVER, due to my dad’s prostate cancer, that marriage can never be consummated. Now, is it a true marriage? How do all those black and white biblical laws apply to all situations?
And, to address your first question, BB, a man can’t have sex without desiring her sexually! Sex is, in my mother’s words, “a very beautiful thing” and God made human beings beautifully sexual – with or without a piece of paper. It is human responsibility and maturity (not a piece of paper) that determine how to express that sexuality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great questions, Carol. Now we’re getting into what consists of “knowing” or “not knowing” someone sexually. Bill Clinton had his ideas, didn’t he?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Bike Bubba, I’m not sure what you mean by your question. I’m not trying to win or lose but get to original meaning of the scriptures. You phrased that question as if I must prove a man can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually. Is this your interpretation of Jesus’ “look at a woman with lust?” The problem is, this is a lot more complicated than you think when you get inside the cultural and linguistic minds of Jews in the first century. “Woman” in Jesus’ teaching is probably talking about a married woman not a single woman. Adultery to the Jews for a man was taking another man’s wife. Jesus was saying this can happen in your mind and is just as bad. He wasn’t talking about just having sexual desire or being attracted to someone. Jewish men could have sexual desire for single women and not sin. That’s just being human. The sin was wanting to take for yourself sexually what belonged to another. This interpretation fits better with the original Greek and Deuteronomy 21:11 where Jewish men were told they could take captive women as their wives: “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house…” Simply having sexual desire for a person, in and of itself, is not wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of this brings up for me the recent Duggar girls’ weddings. Jim Bob (the dad) orchestrated the courtships of those girls, mandating that the couples would share only side hugs and be fully chaperoned until engagement, and then they would only hold hands until the wedding day. While I believe that the couples probably do love each other (as well as any two young people can under the watchful eye of authoritarian parents), I do not believe that they KNOW each other anywhere near well enough to get married.
How is it that any sexual contact whatsoever is regarded as sinful and dirty until magically, on the wedding night, sex is wonderful and GO FOR IT! I don’t get the feeling that these couples get any sex education at all, in regards to not only understanding and embracing their own sexuality, but in the actual how-to’s of a mutually satisfying sexual partnership. The girls’ sexuality was never their own; daddy “owned” it until the wedding night. How are these couples supposed to KNOW each other suddenly, after only experiencing their first kiss (probably ever) that morning? This seems completely unnatural to me and it seems that too much is expected of these couples – unless the only expectation is that the wife “lie there” and await the first of many God-granted pregnancies. I’d like to think that these couples spend some time lovingly and freely exploring their own sexuality, free from guilt and free from daddy’s control, but it seems that, from day one, the wife becomes a baby-making machine and that control of her is simply passed from daddy to hubby.
I know this is an extreme example, but I wonder how the church condones this as healthy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carol, you ask a couple of good questions. here’s the CDC regarding the duration of fornicatory relationships?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm
You cannot get to an average number of six sexual partners if the vast majority of sexual relationships outside of marriage don’t fail. You’ll also find, if you care to look up the data, that such relationships are more likely to end in divorce if they ever do get to marriage, they are three times more likely to have domestic violence, they fill our prisons with their illegitimate children, they fill our doctors’ offices with STD cases, and they fill the ranks of the poor and welfare recipients.
The reason for all this is simple; while marriage doesn’t make an unloving relationship loving, it’s not just a “piece of paper”, but rather is a legally enforceable contract that is also generally respected and enforced in churches. Most participants embrace that provision and are better for it; and the law (and sometimes churches) step in when one participant does not. Hence the results for marriage are strikingly different from the results of fornication.
In the case you mention, let’s ask a simple question; do your father and his lady friend have a a legally enforceable contract to provide for the other?
Answer: no. So yes, it’s sinful, period, according to the Bible, and senior centers are reporting skyrocketing STD rates among seniors as they pretend that God can be mocked in this matter.
This may seem harsh, but consider that (Ephesians 5, the prophets of the OT, Revelation) God pictures His love for Israel and the church as a marriage relationship. So fornication is not just a human crime; it is a rejection of the created order.
And yes, these things are black and white, just like many other things, like gravity, supply and demand, and such. Suffice it to say–see the evidence above–that we ignore these realities at our peril.
LikeLike
“Simply having sexual desire for a person, in and of itself, is not wrong.”
If it WERE wrong, we’d all be doomed! As would the human race…
LikeLiked by 3 people
BB, separate responsible relationships from irresponsible relationships. The latter are more likely end in STDs and later divorce, the former not. Lots of marriage relationships end in divorce too. Now does that make marriage wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
BB, if this is black and white, explain to me why God didn’t condemn having two wives in the OT, but only condemned showing favoritism to one over the other; Deut. 21:15 – “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.” Why didn’t God just say, having two wives is an abomination or something like that?
LikeLike
MW; the problem with your argument is that if you want to argue that the Bible condones sex outside of marriage, you’ve got to deal with the fact that Matthew 5:28 clearly says that lusting after a woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart, and thus having sex with her would qualify as adultery/fornication as well.
So to defend your premiss that the Bible does not ban fornication, you have to argue that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually. Again, good luck with that one.
It should also be noted that, ahem, the Bible is printed in black and white, not shades of gray, and therefore it says certain things fairly emphatically. If you do not believe Christ when He tells you that lusting after a woman is wrong, you at the same time are unlikely to believe Him when He tells you how to be saved. You are in great danger, MW.
Carol: it may seem odd that a couple can have a happy marriage if they do not “test drive” each other first, but is that not exactly what the Bible records of Isaac and Rebekah? Of Adam and Eve? Of Jacob and Rachel? For that matter, are the arranged marriages in India and elsewhere less, or more, likely to end than those here? Was the divorce rate higher in the past, when more courted in a similar way to the Duggar ladies, or is it higher today?
Answers: yes, yes, yes, Indian marriages have a much lower divorce rate, and the divorce rate was far lower in the U.S. So it would seem that once a couple and their families determine compatibility and enter into an enforceable contract, sex generally is a pretty straightforward matter.
Which is really, of course, what the fornicator is telling us. He is not going to bother with others helping him figure out compatibility, or enter into a contract which protects him and his lover, but rather jumps in with whoever appeals to him at the time. It’s actually far less discriminating, no?
LikeLike
BB, I’m not sure how to even respond. Our worlds are obviously SO completely different!
Each of my now-adult children (25 – 30) have had previous relationships – most of them long-standing and serious and, yes, sexual. Because those relationships are in the past does not mean that they FAILED. They didn’t last because each partner was growing and maturing and getting to know not only the other person, but what they, themselves, want in life and in a relationship. In a very real sense, those relationships *succeeded* in the process of young people really getting to know themselves and relationship dynamics before they take the HUGE step of actually getting married. In all cases, everyone did just fine and moved on, knowing that having relationships is part of maturing and truly understanding themselves.
In one of my daughter’s past relationships, her bf became quite controlling months into the relationship. She had the personal confidence to say “nope, not for me” and the freedom (because they were not married) to end it – and now she knows what signs to look for to avoid a controlling, authoritarian man. All good things, right?
I believe that by putting so much emphasis on sex and making rules around it so black and white, MORE damage is actually being done. And I also believe that it is this sort of attitude that actually leads to so many sex scandals within the church. Sex scandals happen when those who create all the rules find the breaking of those rules too titillating to resist.
What if the rules were simply LOVE AND COMPASSION ALWAYS… TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED. Seems to me, a lot of people would be both happier and healthier.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MW, I am separating responsible relationships from irresponsible ones. If a man exposes his lover to the risks of sex without a contract requiring him to provide for her, he is irresponsible, period. It is you who refuses to divide in this regard.
(and regarding divorce, I already pointed out that marriage in itself does not make a relationship responsible–it is merely more responsible than not marrying)
And regarding polygamy, take a close look at Deuteronomy 21. The man was not allowed to diminish his first wife’s (first wives’) food, clothing, or marital affection. Along with the provision on inheritances, it’s not an endorsement of polygamy, but a severe restriction on it. This is especially the case when one is aware of the mitzvah (commandment) for a man to satisfy his wife (wives) sexually on the Sabbath, specifically Friday evening in the Talmuds.
In the same way I say “good luck” to you to prove that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her sexually, I say “good luck” to the man who thinks that he can satisfy more than one wife in the few hours of a Friday evening. So you misunderstand the Torah.
LikeLike
Gee, thanks for the warning, BB. I interpret some verses differently than you do and now I’m in danger? Do we all have to believe the way you do, or the way evangelicals do on these issues? You come across as a condescending know-it-all but you seem to refuse to at least acknowledge it’s a good thing to get to the original meaning of scripture and that you might not have a monopoly on that. I admit, I may be wrong. Can you admit that? Maybe your interpretation is not really the right one?
As I and many others who study Jewish culture conclude, Matthew 5:28 does not clearly say that lusting (the word is “covet” in the Septuagint) after any woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart. I don’t have to argue that you can have sex with a woman without desiring her. That’s a straw man. I gave one example in the OT. Men had desire/lust for beautiful women and were not committing adultery. In Jewish culture, the word “woman” referred to married women 99 percent of the time. There was a word for single women (virgins) that Jesus did not use. Like Carol said, if mere sexual desire is sin, then we’re all doomed.
As for your premise about fornication always being condemned, one biblical scholar called translating “porneia” as fornication, as “…perhaps the most deliberately mistranslated word in the Biblical literature.” Don’t you want to get at original meaning? If a word is mistranslated, wouldn’t you want to get the accurate term? Wouldn’t that be honoring the Bible, not dishonoring it?
If the Bible is NOT shades of gray, how do you answer the question about polygamy? And, are you advocating arranged marriages now? Just because a divorce rate is low, that doesn’t mean there are happy marriages. Wouldn’t you agree? Does God want happy marriages and relationships or just a low divorce rate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carole, if loosening the rules around sex were a good thing, wouldn’t we expect the adverse consequences of sex to be diminished as the sexual revolution progressed? We’d expect STD infection rates, divorce rates, domestic violence, poverty, welfare dependency, and the like to go down, no?
But with the sexual revolution, I see all these trending in the wrong way. I would suggest that, as your daughter found out with the controlling boyfriend, that sex without commitment tends to lead to abuse and hurt. We are programmed for marriage by our Creator.
And love? Given that fornication leads to poverty, welfare, crime, STDs, domestic violence, and such, I simply cannot call it “love” when a person advocates premarital or extramarital sex. “Hate” is closer to the truth, because it’s so damaging.
LikeLike
Why is there so much in-fighting among Christians?
LikeLiked by 1 person
BB, there are many biblical scholars that would say you misunderstand the Torah. It’s not just a matter of shoehorning scripture into your pre-conceived theology, but getting to the original intent and meaning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ mwcamp:
Rest assured there are many of us out here in the Christian world who opt for a responsibly reasoned and pragmatic approach to human sexuality rather than one dictated by a singular interpretation of Scripture.
You are not alone my friend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
” I would suggest that, as your daughter found out with the controlling boyfriend, that sex without commitment tends to lead to abuse and hurt. We are programmed for marriage by our Creator.” BB
Baffled. Sex has absolutely nothing at all to do with this. He would have been controlling even if they had never had sex.
Do you suggest that she should have married him and found out he was controlling later? Wasn’t getting to know him and finding out BEFORE marriage the more responsible thing?
LikeLiked by 2 people
BB, lack of love and commitment to a person in a relationship leads to problems. We can agree on that. But the point is you can have love and commitment without being married. You love to point to problems within out-of-marriage circumstances but ignore the problems that can be in marriages–wife beating, sexual abuse, emotional control, lack of love, men oppressing women, etc. Those are problems whether one is married or not. Marriage is a grand idea, mind you. But it’s not the panacea for good relationships. Love is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Love and, I’d say, RESPECT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey, Barnabas, sad to see your sad faces. Yep, wasted many months listening to podcasts of their radio show for a while there, back in 2005-06. Don’t have exact quotes, unfortunately, and I didn’t save any of the e-mail, but yes, that is exactly what I learned from them. Apart from the constant praise of John MacArthur, every day I heard the typical “worm theology” tripe, along with endless shaming and cold, harsh depictions of God and his love (or lack thereof) for people, born again or not.
I wrote to Todd in desperation, asking him to clarify what I understood from him. Really wanted to know if God might possibly want to be as close to me as I did to him, or if God really was so very unhappy with me/us Christians and emotionally distant. I was kind of at the end of my rope, and he knew it. The man refused to give me any hope whatsoever… I had gotten the impression from Todd months before that he was overstepping his boundaries and trying to play Holy Spirit for his listeners, terrified that our belief in a “mushy” or “touchy-feely” God (words he used) would somehow grant us Christians a license to sin (which we’d appreciate), and that it would bring about false conversions. But after those months I concluded that he couldn’t speak/teach about something he didn’t know or personally experience himself.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me about loving God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength… Not easy for me to read the bible these days, and that bit in particular is very interesting to me right now. And just reading the good questions you ask is edifying… Thank you for asking them “out loud.” (Todd teaches against “asking Jesus into your heart,” if that answers one…)
LikeLike
MW, to “covet” is simply to desire something passionately in both the Hebrew and Greek–epithumea can be translated to desire, covet, or lust in both the LXX and NT. And even if you use covet, the thing being coveted is….sex. So your word choice makes no difference to the end meaning.
In other words, the verse means exactly what not only evangelical, but also Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other commentators say it means. You can keep on making slanderous accusations of me if you like, of course, but I’m hardly alone in this view of what the plain language of Matthew 5:28 indicates.
LikeLike
Oasis, that is a sad commentary on evangelicals and neo-Calvinists who take that approach. This has gotten so bad over the years that now when people talk of the love and affection of God too much they get suspect—the old cheap grace theory. Fear of false conversions is another one. As if God is going to reject someone because they didn’t believe everything just right. It’s right doctrine over a love connection. Sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In-fighting, name-calling, chest-pounding and one-up-manship among Christians. WHY? WWJD?
LikeLiked by 1 person
BB, slanderous? So sorry you interpret it that way. Let’s just agree to disagree, brother. No, you’re not alone. But I don’t believe I am either. I hope we can accept each other as fellow followers of Jesus without condemning the other. I believe God loves and woos everyone regardless of their biblical interpretation or doctrine. Right doctrine is not as important as “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”
God’s best to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MW, I’ll be blunt here; even if I were to accept the idea of “love and commitment” being THE dividing line, what proof of love and commitment does a young lady have from her non-married sex partner, or vice versa? What legally binding sacrifices are they making?
Sorry, I’ve done a few laps around the sun, and have seen a few non-marital relationships among my friends and family, and to be blunt, apart from child support and the like, I see precious little evidence of the love and commitment you speak of among unmarried, sexually active couples. They’ll share the rent, buy roses and drinks to get the mood going, but when the fit hits the shan, there isn’t much there.
That doesn’t mean that marriage is perfect, but there are at least real measures of commitment and love beyond sex and sharing the rent.
LikeLike
40-something virgin here (literal virgin. I am not a “secondary virgin” or “born again virgin,” I am the true blue, real deal old fashioned no coitus ever virgin).
Was in long term serious relationship with fiancee. Broke up after several years, never had sex with him, told him that sex prior to marriage is sin. I told him very early in the relationship if he could not accept that, I’d kick him to the curb, and he could move on.
You don’t have to have sexual acts with a partner to determine if they are right for you or not.
I was able to deduce that the Ex was wrong for me with no sex being involved.
LikeLike
MW, to quote you: “You come across as a condescending know-it-all but you seem to refuse to at least acknowledge it’s a good thing to get to the original meaning of scripture and that you might not have a monopoly on that.”
I stand by my comments pointing out your name-calling for that reason.
Regarding the scholars who said “Oh, look the Bible doesn’t just support one man one woman”;OK, data please. Tell me where the Bible discusses men married to men in a positive way, or women married to women in a positive way?
Oh, they’re just arguing that because the Bible tolerates polygamy, that something else is fair game, too? Oh.
Reality here is that Scripture speaks pretty clearly to what sexual relationships are permitted, and which are not. Yes, theologians like John Spong and these guys try to waltz around this, but the language is not beyond our understanding.
LikeLike
Bible teaches that sex outside of marriage is sin.
Even though there are problems within marriage, God no where says,
“You know what? Because married people sometimes have affairs, argue, lie to each other, or abuse each other, I am now granting permission for un-married adults to have sex outside of marriage. So go to it, singles, sleep around however much you want, or with one steady partner, wheeeee.”
LikeLike
What proof? The same proof you get from deciding if you want to marry someone… whether you see real love and commitment. It doesn’t have to be legally binding to see real love and commitment. What proof does one get when she gets married that he will continue? Marriage doesn’t guarantee it.
Daisy, I don’t believe anyone said here that one has to have sex to determine if they are right or not. Just that sex before marriage is not ALWAYS wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bubba Biker said,
MW said,
“Daisy, I don’t believe anyone said here that one has to have sex to determine if they are right or not. Just that sex before marriage is not ALWAYS wrong.”
Er, yeah, some one above was saying her kids having sex prior to marriage helped them to learn and grow about who they are, and what they want in a relationship and blah blah, etc.
And yes, sex before marriage is ALWAYS WRONG. If it wasn’t, I would have been doing the nasty with my ex BF years ago. Bible does not support pre marital sex at all. See my post above. OT demanded stoning to death for pre marital sex. God is not cool with it.
LikeLike
…which neither validates nor invalidates the “sex before marriage OK” AND the “sex before marriage NOT OK” stances. In fact, what it says to me is that sex before marriage is pretty much a NON-issue. Daisy didn’t need it to decide whether the relationship was right for her. My point: too much is made of sex by those who deem themselves the authority on the matter (be it pastor, daddy, or even partner).
LikeLiked by 1 person
carol said, “what it says to me is that sex before marriage is pretty much a NON-issue.”
You’re (unless I am mixing you up with another commentator in this thread?) fine with encouraging people having sex before marriage to determine if their partner is “right for them” or as a “learning experience.” – That can be your personal view, but the Bible does not support pre martial sex, regardless of reason or motivation or outcome.
LikeLike
From BB: “Tell me where the Bible discusses men married to men in a positive way, or women married to women in a positive way?”
Here is an important video that might answer your request:
I’m curious what your (collective) take on it might be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carol, you can argue that a man would be controlling even without sex. Yes, absolutely, and that’s why cultures around the world have traditionally used friends and family to vet potential marriage partners, no? I remember a case where a friend of my wife’s walked away from a relationship because her fiance showed no interest in conversing with my wife and I. The friend figured that if we weren’t good enough for her fiance, neither would she be, so to speak. And it was a whole lot easier because they hadn’t had sex–and it does bond, no?
LikeLike
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”
40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.
41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[a] and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”
43 Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.
44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
I get a huge kick out of the type of sinners that Jesus embraced.
Jesus does redeem prostitutes, by washing their sins away. Gasp, he even invited one into His inner circle.
My goodness, when He resurrected whom did He reveal himself too?
Mary Magdalene, a mere women, she was His beloved, a completely redeemed whore. And because she had been forgiven for so very much, she loved Him with a
extravagant love.
All this discussion on sexuality, purity, is really missing the point IMO of God’s love for virgins & non virgins. Perhaps, we should leave the judging alone to God.
To clarify, I am not saying that people who have sex out of marriage are prostitutes or whores. Nada, never.
My point is everyone should mind their own business, each will give an account.
I will err on the side of mercy because He has been so dang merciful to me, and then there is that little gem in James: “There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daisy, you miss the point. No one said that’s what God said: “sleep around however much you want.” People are arguing that sex outside of marriage is acceptable when there is love, commitment, and responsibility.
BB, I’m entitled to my opinion. You came across that way, to me. Sorry, if that offends you.
So, you want data that the Bible doesn’t teach one-man-one-woman but that its teaching on marriage is complex and confusing? You must be kidding. You don’t know all those litany of verses? Maidservants given to husbands because wives are barren? Heroes of the faith having more than one wife? Concubines?
No, the Bible doesn’t point out men married to men or women married to women. Neither does it mention or condemn lesbianism once in the OT. Or, that’s it’s okay for single women to adopt kids. There’s much that isn’t in the Bible that Christians have no trouble accepting today. But it does condone polygamy and not just tolerate it and never condemns it. The point being, there’s also much in the Bible that Christians don’t accept today. It works both ways.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From Daisy: “You’re fine with encouraging people having sex before marriage to determine if their partner is “right for them” or as a “learning experience.”
I don’t encourage nor discourage. My kids are responsible adults and I trust and respect their mature, adult decisions.
Granted, I throw a bit of wrench into this discussion because I am not beholden to any dogma or doctrine, but it seems to me that there are a variety of voices and opinions worthy of respect and attention. Yes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Granted, I throw a bit of wrench into this discussion because I am not beholden to any dogma or doctrine, but it seems to me that there are a variety of voices and opinions worthy of respect and attention. Yes?”
Yes, Carolsnider.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carol, I would seem to be coming upon your, and MW’s, theological bent. My response to the video is this:
1. Is it impossible that the sin of the Sodomites would manifest itself in multiple ways? Jude 7 points to sexual immorality as a cause for their punishment as well–and it’s interesting that the speaker ignores this passage, as it emphasizes the traditional understanding.
2. I would agree that the Torah in Leviticus does not in itself prove that something is wrong. However, the fact that Romans 1 speaks of the same problem indicates that there is a continuity of thought, and it is worth noting that Romans 1 appeals to the created order.
3. Regarding the analysis of 1 Cor. 6:9 /1 tim 1:9-10 (arsenokoitai and malakoi), the speaker ignores cases where adults were involved in homosexuality, like the Band of Thebes, Socrates’ affair with Alcibiades, and the like. So, as we would guess from Romans 1 (which notes that men lusted for one another), Paul appears to be pointing to the nature of adult homosexual relationships, not pointing merely to abuse of teen boys. FWIW, “arsenokoitai” translates directly to “man-bedders”, and “malakoi” to effeminate–almost precisely the stereotype that prevails today, no?
Probably just as important is the fact that in Scripture, from the prophets to Ephesians 5 to the Gospels to Revelation, marriage is used as a picture of God’s love for the Church and Israel, always portrayed as a bride. So same-sex relationships damage that, too.
And hey–let’s be blunt here–it was a dangerous behavior even before AIDS, as the rectum is full of e coli and rips a lot easier than a vagina. So just as STDs, unwed parenthood, and the like are a warning from Nature about unwed heterosexual fornication, wouldn’t we infer the same from the consequences of homsexual sex?
LikeLike
MW, you are again missing the point. Where in the Bible is polygamy or concubinage encouraged? You will find plenty of polygamy and concubinage in the Bible, and you will find strict limitations on polygamy, but you will find no endorsement of either, and definitely no endorsement of any same-sex sexuality.
You will, however, find a lot of examples of the disasters that attended concubinage and polygamy–wives fighting over their husband(Sarah/Hagar, Rachel/Leah), children killing each other for the inheritance(sons of David), children selling each other into slavery(Joseph’s sons), the children of concubines taking vengeance on the “rightful” heirs (e.g. Abimelech), idolatry from Solomon’s wives, the murder of John the Baptist…..
….it is as if God were telling us that we are best off married to one person of the opposite sex.
LikeLike
Gail, Mary Magdelene is not listed in Scripture as a whore, but rather demon-possessed. Now certainly Jesus did reach out to whores, pagans, tax collectors, and the like, but it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin. Let’s not forget, as Paul Harvey would tell us, “the rest of the story.”
LikeLike
BB, I gave you one example where polygamy is encouraged with a limitation on favoritism. Every place where polygamy is mentioned, there is a chance for God or Moses or the prophets to condemn it, but they never do, with the exception of Solomon being told not to have excessive materials, including wives (listed with things like horses). He’s not told “have only one wife” because to be consistent he’d also say “have only one horse.” (Also, warned about foreign wives, not Hebrew wives). Gideon, David, and several others are praised for many things (David was condemned for adultery, not taking another wife).
David, when rebuked by Nathan, was actually told that God gave him his several wives and would have given more… so why did he have to steal someone else’s?
“Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.” Murder and stealing someone’s wife is condemned. Polygamy is encouraged.
Traditionalists read right over this stuff without thinking it through. As for sins within multiple-wives marriages, well, I see no differentiation in scripture that says… “See all the terrible sins polygamy brings? And all the ones who were monogamous were blameless?” That is not explicit in scripture. If it is “as if God was telling us so,” then why didn’t spell it out in the Torah? Read the whole list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus (Ch. 18) and you won’t find “Thou shalt not have more than one wife.” In fact, it’s fascinating that verse 19 says, “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during her monthly period” rather than “Do not have sex with your wife during her period.” Each prohibition actually doesn’t mention it like they were monogamous, but “Do not have sexual relations with…” rather than just a simple, “Only have sexual relations with your one wife” and “Do not marry the following relatives.”
LikeLike
I find it interesting how some people regard the Bible as if life today were exactly as it was thousands of years ago and as if all laws set forth two thousand years ago also apply today. We don’t, for example, separate our cloths or ban menstruating women to a tent or avoid curves in our haircuts. And we don’t generally condone polygamy. Yet, I often see Christians dissect Bible verses with absolute scrutiny and certainty, as if they were written yesterday and as if they apply in totality to our current lives. How can that realistically work?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carol, I’m not trying to make the case that polygamy is okay for today, but rather that it was accepted in the Bible and never condemned. That fact just shows that the theology of sex and marriage today can’t just be taken literally from the Bible and applied “in totality to our current lives.” The culture was so different from ours, we need to see what it meant back then, to see how it might apply today… if it does at all—often it doesn’t, because I believe it shouldn’t be used as a universally-applicable Rulebook.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To answer your question directly, it can’t work because the cultural settings are so different. But there is a place to dissect what the Bible teaches to bring historical accuracy and scriptural honesty to the table when we have modern discussions on what constitutes “biblical” marriage for example and whether gay marriage is okay. Traditionalists always make claims that the Bible teaches clearly on monogamous marriage and one-man-one-woman, when it really doesn’t.
LikeLike
I wrote to Todd in desperation, asking him to clarify what I understood from him. Really wanted to know if God might possibly want to be as close to me as I did to him, or if God really was so very unhappy with me/us Christians and emotionally distant. I was kind of at the end of my rope, and he knew it. The man refused to give me any hope whatsoever…
Oh Oasis! Cringing here! You wanted to be close with God. So now you have more of a heart for God than He has for you? What are these guys smoking? Perhaps I should feel sorry for them if this is who they think God is. Because certainly they can’t have a close relationship with God, since God is kind of a jerk and all. Problem is, they have a platform and many people are being exposed to this.
I’m concerned about this. What are the ramifications here? “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church (which He really hates, but ya know…). Just as long as you don’t get touchy feely/mushy with her, it’s all good.” How does that flesh out? Really. Do they think these things through? Yeesh.
Cringe, groan….
There is a difference between people who do things for you with no heart in it and how cold and sterile it is and how it compares to when someone does things for you because they genuinely care about you. God is holy, not sterile. Good grief. 😦
I’m glad you found my questions edifying. You are not alone in your feelings about this. If he said to me what he said to you, it would mess up my head too. Actually, I am pretty put out by it. Sounds like he was putting a stumbling block in front of you, or otherwise blocking the way and “guarding God” from you. Pretty sure God doesn’t need guarding. I’m also pretty sure the Holy Spirit knows how to convict people better than Friel does and He probably doesn’t really need Friel’s help with that.
As far as the love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc. being interesting to you, I’m glad I gave you something to work with. I’d like to hear about it if you want to share. Or not. That’s OK too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barnabasintraining, “Oh Oasis! Cringing here! You wanted to be close with God. So now you have more of a heart for God than He has for you? What are these guys smoking? Perhaps I should feel sorry for them if this is who they think God is. Because certainly they can’t have a close relationship with God, since God is kind of a jerk and all. Problem is, they have a platform and many people are being exposed to this.”
You are one cool dude! I would like to hear about Oasis’s journey out of all that b.s. or nonsense also.
LikeLike
“There is a difference between people who do things for you with no heart in it and how cold and sterile it is and how it compares to when someone does things for you because they genuinely care about you. God is holy, not sterile. Good grief. 😦
Barnabasintraining, Love this ” God is Holy, not sterile” Yes, God is love. LOVE.
LikeLike
Bike Bubba
OCTOBER 22, 2014 @ 3:01 PM
Gail, Mary Magdelene is not listed in Scripture as a whore, but rather demon-possessed. Now certainly Jesus did reach out to whores, pagans, tax collectors, and the like, but it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin. Let’s not forget, as Paul Harvey would tell us, “the rest of the story.”
Well, with so many Mary’s in the bible, and my Catholic understanding, I stand corrected. Glad you have repented of your sins. Good for you. I can barely lift my eyes to heaven, as I beg, Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
” But it is also worth noting that He called them to repent of their sin.”
You sound like you have it all figured out. Thats nice, for you. FWIW, Certainty makes me puke. I was very certain for way too many years. Then this gift of being unraveled into humility & not knowing leveled me to the cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, I agree with your posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice that BB tells Michael he has to support an argument that BB assumes he is making or else he ‘loses.’
Most of us are here to discuss issues surrounding spiritual abuse and to support each other. It is bizarre to think there have to be winners and losers on this site.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This comment thread on this page has transformed how I look upon this blog. So much controversy, tolerated! And so little of it rude, ad hominem! Almost none of it controversy that I have sparked myself, as I am prone to do, because I have the annoying habit of thinking for myself, and occasionally posting comments on this or that of the many blogs I follow, that don’t necessarily fit in easily with the groupthink of the blogs concerned. Wow!!!
We are well past nit-picking about the verbatim of the “Bill Nye science guy” look-alike whose “virginity” video Julie Anne used to launch this discussion. Before long, we (or you, at least) could even end up discussing what “marriage” is, even though nobody took the bait when I commented earlier to the effect that that was (so-to-speak) the $64,000 question.
LikeLike
I really appreciate respectful dialogue. One way that the discussion goes downhill really quickly for me (and is likely to trigger people) is when we read stuff like, “you are in great danger if you believe or don’t believe _________.”
Feel free to agree or disagree with someone, but please don’t play judge with people’s spiritual lives here. Pray for someone, share topic-related Bible verses, have thoughtful discussion, but please allow God to do the convicting and changing of hearts without the spiritual threats. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would add …
Almost every blog post I’ve read so far on this blog, before this one, has seemed almost calculated to draw up battle lines between celebrity career clergy of a particular brand of churchmanship (who aren’t likely to turn up here to defend themselves), and bruised and delicate survivors of alleged spiritual abuse perpetrated by them and their likes, who are here in recovery, and who are apt to mob any intruder who has questions, lest he be a “troll”.
But, with almost no help at all from me (an erstwhile alleged troll), this thread has become mighty *interesting*, because it has sparked controversy that is far more important than the usual consensus one questions at one’s peril, where the battle lines are differently drawn.
Now, that sort of nitty gritty polite debate is what the phrase “Spiritual Sounding Board” conjures up in my mind, far more than the diet of hurt people denouncing church leaders whose churches anyone is free to leave, because it took them so long to hear God telling you to leave them that leaving seems not to be vengeance enough on the leaders who are no longer followed.
People have started talking about real issues here at last, not just grumbling about personalities and theological schools of thought and caught-with-pants-down scandals.
Oh God, please grant that Julie Anne likes this development, and wants more of the same, rather than trying to get us all back on topic, the favoured topic being believers being unhappy about bad leaders of large churches they have left, with questionable doctrines, and the odd scandal here and there. Important though all that might be, if we had more time.
LikeLike
John, and I thought you were going to say, “Oh God, please grant Julie Anne a good night’s sleep tonight.” Silly me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Bike Bubba:
I’ll probably regret jumping into this thread (it seems to have devolved pretty badly), but:
1. Only the marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church. This DOES NOT apply to all male-female relationships everywhere. If it did, every male-female relationship would have to have a head party and a submitting party and that’s not spelled out in the Bible anywhere. If I as a female have a male friend (and I have several), he is not my “head.” Same for a woman’s male coworker, uncle, little brother, etc. The flipside is that men do not get to expect all women everywhere to submit to them. So your children’s relations with the opposite sex do not universally show the world a picture of Christ and the church, unless they’re relating to that person in a marriage. They could maybe practice a marriage-like relationship (sans sex) when engaged or seriously heading that direction, but if they just have an opposite-sex friend or we’re talking about an opposite-sex sibling, then the Christ-church imagery’s not relevant.
2. The idea that all opposite-sex relationships image Christ and the church is a patriocentric one. The Botkin sisters are especially fond of it. It’s a tool to perpetuate their strict gender hierarchy and toxic authoritarian theology, because it basically sets all men up as “heads” (i.e., authorities, in their view) over all women. So what you end up with is a kind of sex-based caste system that’s highly unbiblical.
3. Connecting all non-family male-female relationships to marriage / romance / sex, projects sexuality or potential sexuality onto innocent and platonic relationships. All that does is make a functioning relationship awkward, and risks destroying a healthy normal friendship that’s benefiting both parties. Most Christians I know who do this, either don’t allow their children to have opposite-sex friends, or insist on reading things that aren’t there into the opposite-sex friendships their children already have. This usually results in the child only having same-sex friends. In the end it basically implies that all relationships between non-family opposite-sex individuals, must of necessity be sexual / romantic at the outset, or inevitably turn sexual / romantic, which is just not true. (Hollywood doesn’t help on this front either – i.e., all the movies about “we were friends for years and I was so blind until I saw HE / SHE WAS THE ONE ALL ALONG.”)
LikeLike
@ Bike Bubba said:
Hester said: 1. Only the marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church. This DOES NOT apply to all male-female relationships everywhere.
I agree with you, Hester. I only seen Christ and the church mentioned in the Bible as a picture of husband/wife – – no other male-female relationship.
Hester said:
I just got a flashback of a homeschooling family I know who told the daughters to serve their brothers as they would their fathers.
ick, ick, and more ick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Bike Bubba
“lusting after a woman you’re not married to is adultery of the heart”
If I am not married, and the woman I am “lusting after” isn’t married either, I cannot see how my lust after her could possibly be “adultery of the heart”, because admitting to her frankly that I was lusting after her, and proposing marriage to her, wouldn’t be at all adulterous, would it? If a he and a she aren’t married to other people, they obviously cannot commit adultery together literally. So how can one of them, in his or her “heart”, commit adultery with the other, even this metaphorically?
I used to drive a bunch of worldly crackheads and heroin addicts to church often. I once asked them what part of woman’s body they looked at second, if her face was pretty. Their unsaved answers were titillatingly predictable. Mine was the fourth finger of her left hand. Was I naughty even to pick a third body part to glance at, lustfully, if the ring finger gave me the all-clear? Even if this was a Christian woman? If so, then please explain how!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barnabasintraining, thanks for your cringes! Yes, more than anything in the world, I wanted to be close to God, and the question of whether or not he actually wanted a “personal relationship” with me, as I had been taught, plagued me for a long time. I wondered if I had misunderstood God, who was tolerating me but wanted me to sort of leave him alone and keep it professional, that kind of thing. Seems silly to me now that I ever doubted the reality of my relationship with Jesus that I had known for 10+ years at the time, but I had basically handed over my mind to bad teaching about God and had my reality warped…
You are spot on about what Todd was doing and how God doesn’t need extra Holy Spirits running around. No, doesn’t seem to me that they think through much at all, and yes, they have a platform, which is why I piped up again. I hadn’t even considered what that distant view of God might say to husbands and wives. The ramifications aren’t good for anyone, and I don’t want anyone else to get lost, wandering around needlessly in a desert of smoke and mirrors for a single drop of water!
Like Gail, absolutely love what you said about God, and the difference between being sterile and actually genuinely caring about someone. Also, thanks for the “you are not alone,” that’s always good to know! Distorted views of God can lead a person away from God, even all the way to suicide, and I wish more Christians would bother to give an actual, real damn.
Loving God with all of our heart etc. is very interesting to me because I haven’t dissected or studied that at all, and it looks very shiny and full of exciting implications. 🙂
LikeLike
Gail, not much of a story to tell, really…went on a mad search that lasted a while, analyzing to death every single mention of love I could find in scripture…looking for any drop of water explaining the love of God…any evidence of a heart, contradicting the picture painted by Todd and his cohort. All I wanted to know was if God truly loved me or not, the way I hoped he did. But the book, and doing this, was actually not much help at first, because nothing was specific or detailed enough for me, to answer my question, and figured I needed to do an in-depth word study…
The fire started to go out, and then I read Isaiah 49:15, and it gave me a spark of hope. I tried to reason that if God said this, about…Israel? then maybe he might feel love or compassion for me, too?…as his child? Had no idea about the context, or correctness of translation, but the concept stayed with me, as I stopped my search, weary of it…
From there, it became personal…I was just beginning to work through childhood abuse, and all I can say is that God really seemed to get a kick out of shocking me with his love and support… Sorry to be vague, I have no idea how to begin to explain what he’s done for me. But he proved his heart to me all by himself, through relationship. 🙂
Seems I have to fight for this relationship, because it has been one spiritual crisis after another, one ongoing. Almost as if there is a gang of demons forever trying new ways to take God away from me. Some brilliant bloggers reminded me that God and his love/character is revealed to us in Jesus. I tune out the lies and hold onto that for dear life. This is the short version. 🙂
LikeLike
“I used to drive a bunch of worldly crackheads and heroin addicts to church often. I once asked them what part of woman’s body they looked at second, if her face was pretty. Their unsaved answers were titillatingly predictable.” (John)
Question: What is the difference between a non-believer and an un-believer? I see “un” used a lot in these circles and haven’t seen that before as a way of describing what I know as a non-theist or non-believer.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ok guys! Though your discussion is interesting, most young people’s eyes would glaze over if they read the discussion. This would have no impact on a young person’s decision on whether or not to have sex before marriage.
Young people are looking for relationship, affirmation, and answers. Academic Bible discussions don’t work. It just turns into an argument where everyone wants to be “right”. We need to listen, listen and listen more. Then enter into dialogue to talk about the real questions out kids are asking.
As for 80 year olds-they have lived much longer than most of us and don’t need out advise on marriage and sex!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ann, I totally agree. Teens will tune out (and sometimes call out, *IF* they don’t feel fearful and oppressed) communication that doesn’t feel open, honest, and genuine to them. Handing down rules and decrees from the pulpit doesn’t exactly invite open communication. Better, I think, would be to ask lots of *non-judgmental* questions and provide lots of *objective, evidence-based* information. Anything less won’t instill trust and communication.
Which prompts me to ask… Bike Bubba, are you by any chance a youth leader?
LikeLiked by 2 people