From a Christian stand point, do you think there is ever a time outside of marriage where sex is okay? For instance, is there such thing as a marriage type relationship? Okay for instance. Lets say two people have been dating for like 3 years and are either engaged or about to be engaged. They are only holding off on marriage because of money issues or long distance issues. They are 99% sure they are going to get married but just don’t see it happening in the immediate future. What about that? Marriage these days isn’t even all that reliable. Christians make it seem that marital sexual intercourse is totally safe and secure and that the bond between two people sworn to each other for life is such a better environment for sex. What about the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce? Or the fact that that number is dropping because more people than ever before are choosing not to get married.
Here’s one more thing. I’m a male in my early twenties. Which is 2-4 years past my sexual peak. Average age of marriage is closing in on 30. So my faith is asking me to bench myself until I’m almost 12 years over the hill? That’s like telling Lebron James to wait until he’s 30 to play professional basketball. We should be able to make a deal, lemme play now and I’ll take a few years off to make up for it when I’m like 70.
Will sex outside of marriage always be frowned upon?
This may be opening Pandora’s Box but what the hay. Speaking in tongues has gotten way out of control. I am not a biblical scholar, and I never did Junior Bible Quiz. But on the day of Pentecost, wasn’t everyone speaking in other languages? Not just mumbo jumbo they were making up on the spot. And believe me when I say I have heard dozens of missionaries tell stories about themselves speaking in tongues and communicating in perfect dialect with some foreign people group. And I myself got “Baptized By The Holy Spirit” at Snow Camp. But really, the crazy bag lady at the CYL is speaking in her own language half the time, does that mean she is full of the Holy Spirit…? I know the idea of Tongues of Fire, and a Holy Language has biblical roots, but I think it has been blown way out of proportion.
Is the contemporary interpretation of Speaking in Tongues really that vital to a Christian’s life?
/discuss
Schroeder “The Great Decoder” Bernstein
Woodward
Bernstein
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
This is an interesting post.
While I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what my fellow plighter is suggesting, I do believe that these are valid questions the church needs to address.
I will remind those of you who post after me that would attempt to bring “correction” to my friend, that he has vocalized questions that a lot of young people are asking. So before you bring accusations and condemnation, try to understand where young people in our movement are coming from.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
“Marriage these days isn’t even all that reliable.”
Interesting and thoughtful post. I raise similar concerns about the institution in my critique of marriage.
Marriage simply isn’t for me, yet others place a varied significance to that event. Since we don’t share a faith, you are free to contexualize your valid concerns to it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
That’s why there are two of us… one to do something stupid and the other to make up for it.
Next week, expect me to argue that Jesus and Shiva are basically the same person.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
this is probably a really stupid question.
but where exactly in the bible does it say to wait til marriage?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm |
i can see where you are coming from and i think that it is funny that you are comparing your sexual peak to lebron james’ basketball career…and i love the game show let’s make a deal but i think you may have some very angry AG-ers on your hands.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 4:23 am |
I’ve actually heard it argued that because there was no formal wedding ceremony for Adam and Eve, their sexual intercourse was the physical manifestation of their union (or marriage).
Which means…(gasp) that two people are married as soon as they have sex, whether there’s a ceremony or not. (there was some other stuff he argued, but that’s the gist of it).
It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible SPECIFICALLY to wait…as far as I know. But it is inferred all over the place…as far as I know.
“Will sex outside of marriage always be frowned upon?” Well, I hope so, at least by the church. If they stop frowning upon it, then I would think we need to re-evaluate a whole bunch of things…which we do anyway, especially since the divorce rate is 50% in this country.
Although, I must say that all of your reasons seem like attempts to justify something that you want that God may not want for you. But that’s for you and God to work out.
As for the speaking in tongues thing…I believe it’s been blown up a little too much, yes, but one of the most important things I learned from Dr. Allen (and probably the only thing I learned from Dr. Allen) was this:
A whole bunch of denominations were birthed in the Azuza street revival; some made speaking in tongues a part of their doctrine (i.e. A/G) and some did NOT emphasize it (i.e. Christian Missionary Alliance). Before he died, the founder of the Christian Missionary Alliance (I don’t remember his name) stated that he wished he had made the “initial physical evidence” of tongues a part of his denomination’s doctrine because by the time he was about to die, the CMA had all but completely lost the gift of the Holy Spirit in its ENTIRETY (based off of the Acts 2 model), not just speaking in tongues.
So, in response to the second question, I believe we need to keep tongues around, if for no other reason than the fact that they serve as a gateway into further spiritual giftings from the Holy Spirit.
Word.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 4:24 am |
And Shiva can’t be Jesus…the Romans wouldn’t have know where to nail his other two arms on the cross.
Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 1:21 pm |
In my personal experience, the doctrine of “save yourself at all costs” did more harm than good.
I lost my virginity, shortly after leaving North Central. I don’t know if it was a moment of weakness, or loneliness, or whatever, but combined with everything I’d ever been told by my church and school, the experience left me feeling worthless.
In turn, that feeling led me to make ALL KINDS of damaging choices.
The Bible has numerous prohibitions on fornication. However, in this cultural context, I don’t know that fornication exactly means “sex without some kind of formal ceremony first.” I believe it to mean casual sex as just another form of affection, with just anyone you’re slightly fond of, as opposed to sex within a committed relationship.
Sex is special. It should be treated as such, and never disrespected. However, virginity is not the be-all and end-all of purity. To suggest that it is can do a lot of damage.
And I’m sure many will try to “correct” me as well… I can only speak from my personal experience, and the peace I have found with God at this point in my life.
P.S. Unfortunately, marriage is rarely forever. Though we thought we were making a lifelong commitment, my husband and I got divorced after 5 years. Does that make the sex we had right, wrong, or somewhere in between? Or is it just nobody’s business but our own?
Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
Thank you Jen, for being so open and honest.
I’ve honestly been contemplating deleting my post the last few days. A few people close to me said I was abusing the soapbox I had created with my satire. Upon reading a few of the earlier comments about what it seemed my intentions for writing this were, I was even closer to deleting the post, until I read yours.
The purpose of this article is not to justify personal actions or make excuses for mistakes. I was just trying to open a discussion about thought processes that can be taken for granted without firm reason.
This will probably be the last “Tell Me Why” segment as I will try to incorporate my random thoughts back into witty, insightful satire. Instead of soapboxy, anti-establishment questions.
Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 11:59 pm |
I think that it is funny that some people say that Adam and Eve were not married so they had sex “outside” of marriage…Adam and Eve were also made into a perfect world where they didn’t need law to bind them together…they didn’t know marriage because they didn’t know loss.
Adam and Eve were the perfect couple…until they fricked over the world, that is…thanks guys.
Friday, February 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm |
Thank you for not deleting the post, Schroeder. I think it’s an overdue conversation that needs to happen, no matter who it pisses off.
Friday, February 15, 2008 at 11:19 pm |
Schroeder:
I think you are right in saying you should stick with the witty, insightful satire. I appreciate your desire to open up a discussion but am disappointed in the quality of the language you used to pose these questions. Your musings are fraught with fallacies and while it is allowed in blogworld to rant (within reason), I had come to expect something more thoughtfully curated from this site.
I am otherwise enjoying myself here in The Plight very much (but will be sure to let you know if the situation changes).
Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 12:11 am |
Funny Schroeder, I wonder why sex and tongues made it into the same article.
There should be some sort of discussion on what sex is. Intercourse, I would argue, is a form of sex, whereas “sex” takes on many forms throughout a sexual relationship. If I were to follow the basketball analogy, Lebron James would be fully able to play basketball but unable to play in the NBA. Plenty of supposed virgins have participated in an enormous amount of sex but have been lacking in intercourse (which is the best part).
Though marriage is not clearly mandated in the scriptures as a precursor to marriage (or even inferred as such for that matter) there exist principles most individuals can grasp from scriptural mandate: commitment, self-control, holistic love, godliness.
This is where I feel I was horribly disconnected when growing up in a chastened worldview. Evangelicals/Fundamentalists struggle to see and teach why cultural forms are established and simply reinterpret them to fit our new cultural understanding. This cannot be done. One must not take a Levetical law and transpose it unto modern day ignoramus American theology (more accurately, doctrine).
Same with tongues, why the hell would some lunch lady run around screaming in a language no one can discern? What good does this bring? How can we reconcile how different we are from the discovering churches in Jerusalem and Corinth with regressive teachings from cultural imbeciles (speaking historically and currently) that shadow our moldy pulpits?
For example, Edward Rockwell III claims Christian and Missionary Alliance was “… birthed in the Azuza Street revival.” This is egregiously false. The movement itself had begun many years before Pentecostal revivals began taking place. A.B. Simpson, a leader in the C&MA was greatly affected by Pentecostalism, as was the movement. Pentecostal issues that plagued the church caused the C&MA to adopt a formal set of doctrines and eventually, start a denomination. However, the movement was founded upon the correlative of missionaries and Christians working together BEFORE Pentecostalism took form.
Though we are not far removed from these events, simple misconstruction of these facts can drastically sway teaching. People go to church every Sunday hearing “spiritual truths” espoused based on such misnomers.
One more thought …
For what reason do people keep themselves sexually inactive? I think if we were to be honest, this has less to do with god, our parents or our “future spouse”. I believe we are motivated by the cultural taboo of premarital intercourse and thus speak so strongly against such occurrences while lacking the grace we show to many other acts against our divine initiative.
Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
I was about to say “TLDR” but that would be a lie… i read that horribly long post.
To add my thoughts:
/agree with Anon-odyne
Also, sex of many and most sorts outside of a committed marriage relationship has harms way way way past just spiritual guilt. In today’s world (let’s face it) it just isn’t safe or smart. STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, emotional scars, and on and on (you’ve heard it in health class people).
I wish we’d stop asking questions about how far away from God’s plan for us we can get and still be in the clear (eternally speaking) and start asking how CLOSE can I get?
We are facing the wrong direction.
Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
Thank you for bringing up the topic. Seeing as marriage and sexuality have been consistently redefined throughout the last century, we need more people who are willing to present the issue and actually THINK about and discuss it (instead of quoting christianisms and playing the ‘burn in hell’ card). In a society where the success or failure of a marital union could be predicted with a coin toss, it is time to ask more questions, and not silence them.
I would, however, refrain from using the divorce rate as any sort of justification for playing the field instead of getting married. A general lack of self-control and selflessness plagues our country, and this is reflected in marriages. An influx of divorces does not justify ignoring the marital covenant, just as an influx of robberies does not justify committing robbery yourself.
Take Paul’s advice. Keep it in your pants, or get married. Then take Christ’s, and see marriage as a union before God that should be taken very seriously and not entered into with an exit strategy. Frankly, you should think before you boink. Does anyone else find the number of STD’s in our country ridiculous? How about the continuing spread of AIDS? What about the number of unwanted children going to foster care and orphanages, as well as the suprising number of those who end up incarcerated? Serious and often fatal illnesses are running rampant, and all it would take to stanch this bloodflow would be some discretion and self-restraint.
Sadly, most Americans, or perhaps simply all of us sinners, are prone to look out for number one and prefer our own trivial gratification to the health and well-being of our world and our fellow.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 10:50 am |
/clap
/agree
Friday, February 22, 2008 at 7:54 pm |
I think a Theology of Sex class at NCU could be popular . . . as long as legitimate questions like the one’s posted here can be asked and addressed! Do you think God is up in heaven, listening to all of our sex-talk, and saying . . . “That’s not why I created sex?” (Ditto with the whole “tongues” thing)
Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 1:47 am |
idgi
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:45 pm |
It’s no surprise that the current questions about sex are what they are. When christianity, or any religion, becomes internalized and privatized questions of self-control and abstinence become hard to answer. Why should we choose to abstain when it feels so good to give in? If I can overcome my sexual impulses by having sex, especially when I’m either engaged or 99% sure that soon I will be, then why shouldn’t I? This is a question that can only be asked by a person with a privatized, internalized christianity. Because if our christianity is communal and both internal/external, then it is not a question of what “I” can or can not do. The question always has to be how do my actions influence/affect the community? Because we do not phrase the question as such, marriage and singleness lose their symbolism and their ontological reality. Marriage can become simply a solution to a problem, instead of a symbol of the trinitarian relationship, and the relationship of christ to his bride. In the same way, singleness can become a problem to be solved. How many people at NCU were married before they should have been and so divorced before too long? We simply can not imagine that singleness can be a gift from God, a purposeful way of living. We rush into marriage. We rush out of it.
What we need is a reassessment of our theology of marriage and equally as important our theology of singleness. And in our reassessing, we must keep in mind the cultural influences that have plagued the church. We must separate ourselves from the status quo of American sexuality and be a church that lives out an alternative to the sexual promiscuity and lackluster of the sexual revolution.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 1:41 am |
Wow, that was amazing and I feel like today was worth it simply by my reading that (I’m being serious, not mocking)
/agree
Especially:
“This is a question that can only be asked by a person with a privatized, internalized Christianity. Because if our Christianity is communal and both internal/external, then it is not a question of what “I” can or can not do. The question always has to be how do my actions influence/affect the community? Because we do not phrase the question as such, marriage and singleness lose their symbolism and their ontological reality.”
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
padifist.pta you should TEACH NCU’s new Theology of Sexuality class!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
I meant pacifist.pta . . . I don’t even know what a padafist is?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
I’ll vote in favor of that
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
about a month or so ago, Greg Boyd posted some really good stuff about sex and relationships on his blog. they are definitely worth checking out. his blog site is gregboyd.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
Shameless plug but I’ll let it slide.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 9:50 pm |
i only meant it as a source. sorry. hope your toes don’t hurt to much.
Monday, June 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
Bernstein, I don’t think you have much to worry about in matching your sexual performance/ability level to the peak of LeBron’s success… the chances of that are slim to none, but best of luck to you all the same. When in doubt, just chalk it up to “E” for “effort”