Mark Driscoll changes the climate on Christian sex

Christian Today (AU) ^ | 1/20/2010 | Mark Tronson

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Driscoll believes non-Christian sex is the greatest threat to Christianity and wants to replace porn, adultery and divorce with "hot, hetero, covenantal monogamy."

SnakeDoc

[GUNGAGALUNGA]

I know the die hard fundies will get their undies in a wad over this. Bring out the no sex for fun crowd.

[Sherman Logan]

Works for me.

Not particularly fond of discussing it in public, though.

[Funee Kat]

Out of curiosity, which die hard fundies might these be?

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Hmmm.... I consider myself a fundies.....and I like sex for fun with my husband.

[hellbender]

Somehow mankind got along just fine for centuries without sex education. Do people need education in eating, or any other vital function? (To refrain from overeating, yes.) I find it ludicrous that people allegedly need encouragement to engage in sex. What people do need from the church is help in remaining faithful, considering the natural temptation (esp. in males) to be promiscuous.

[VRWCmember]

I know the die hard fundies will get their undies in a wad over this. Bring out the no sex for fun crowd.

Most of the die-hard fundies that I know (I suppose most folks who know me consider ME to be one) would agree whole-heartedly with the pastor's argument that sex is a beautiful gift from God, designed by God, meant for pleasure and intimcacy between husband and wife, and should be enjoyed as much as possible.

[SnakeDoctor]

The problem is, people already have the encouragement to engage from all the wrong people. People need encouragement to engage properly. Christianity is very pro-sex — but the message is getting lost in the list of things that you can’t do.

Christian sex is much more than a “don’t” list.

SnakeDoc

[ichabod1]

What about those who weren’t fortunate enough to be married.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Works for me. Not particularly fond of discussing it in public, though.

Understandable. The thing is, pastors need to discuss it in public. Christians need to discuss it in public. When we don’t, the only public message is the wrong message.

SnakeDoc

[SnakeDoctor]

I don’t write the rules. Ask Him.

SnakeDoc

[Tax-chick]

I suppose there are some people who get a thrill from talking about sex in public. I think that’s adolescent.

[hellbender]

I can find no scriptural basis for exhorting people to have sex with such and such frequency. People differ in their sex drive, and setting quantitative goals seems to me to just encourage people to feel discontented, rather than to think first of the partner, as the Gospel teaches. With enough agape love, anything becomes possible.Yes, Judeo-Christianity is extremely positive about sex, provided it is monogamous and in a context of love. It is also very positive about the natural consequence of sex, which is children. Everything God commands is for our own good. Even the horniest of men usually wind up married, because monogamy is best for all concerned.

[Tax-chick]

seems to me to just encourage people to feel discontented

I agree. What's wrong with just letting couples decide what they want to do, and when. Too much salivating is simply tacky, and can make people feel there's something wrong with their just making one another happy, even if it's not what someone else would call "hot, steamy," or whatever.

[SnakeDoctor]

Perhaps — but it seems to me to be a bad thing when the only frank sex-talk is coming from the wrong side.

SnakeDoc

[Tax-chick]

It depends on whether “frank sex-talk” is a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly it’s not an unlimited good: sex is supposed to be private, not a group activity. Some FReeper quoted a speaker who said, “Sexuality is not a ‘thing’: it is a person, the person of your spouse.”

Perhaps Christians speaking on the subject should emphasize the true intimacy of keeping your personal relationship *personal*, between you and your spouse only, all your life, rather than the false intimacy of getting hot and steamy with every random stranger.

[SnakeDoctor]

First, there is a scriptural basis for exhorting people to fully meet the needs of their spouse. But, you are right — if everyone’s satisfied, there isn’t a frequency requirement.

But ...

Second, marital relationships are almost never harmed by too much sex within the relationship. A quantitiative goal helps demonstrate the intimacy a relationship may be missing when the frequency has dipped.

SnakeDoc

[hellbender]

Sex is good, as is everything else God created for us. But nobody needs it the way we need food and water. If one partner willfully withholds sex from the other, especially to punish him/her or bargain for something else, that is very sinful. But suppose one person cannot physically provide everything the other wants? I've actually read of couples where there was no sex at all, due apparently to physical problems, yet they stayed together in love Agape love trumps eros every time in God's book. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, i.e. sacrificially and unselfishly. Certainly that's grounds for some self-denial. It's just hard for me to believe that today, in a culture obsessed with sex and drenched in sexual information, that anyone is still inhibited or embarrassed by it, as many were in the past. I think these ministers are falling for a worldly view tempting us to be dissatisfied with whatever it is we have.

[time4good]

"I can find no scriptural basis for exhorting people to have sex with such and such frequency"

Really? What do you think Paul was talking about when he said a. a husband's body is not his own, his wife has rights to it, likewise the wife's and b. don't be apart (sexually/intimately as the context is clear) too long, except for prayer, else the enemy will tempt you. Do you think he was talking about doing grocery shopping together? Since I was a young boy growing up a Pentecostal Preacher's son, I knew Song of Solomon was the most beautiful AND Godly ordained erotic book in the Bible, and when Hebrews says 'The bed, in marriage, is undefiled' i.e., anything goes, when done in Godly, Holy, Selfless love with your spouse. That's why I laugh with disgust at the ignorance when Madonna thinks religous folks are too sexually repressive and she's got the corner on it. Deep down she would crave a loving intimate relationship with total surrender to each other. A survey taken a number of years ago found that the most fundamental and God-fearing people were the most sexually intimate and pleased with their love life.

But, in balance to several poster's points, the how/when/how-much/what is totally personal between husband/wife. Plus, this much needed openness of discussion of the topic must come with strong awareness that Satan would love to take the openness of the discussion between church members and use it for 'isolated discussions'.

[time4good]

I 100% agree that Agape love is the foundation and source for the three others (phileo, storge(sp?) and eros). But I think, as I just posted, that this can be done in a Godly, Spirit-led way so as to combat the ever-increasing satanic twisting of what is good into perverted and/or condemning. I see nothing wrong with the ever-diligent task to inform the world that what God called good can and should be enjoyed and any substitute is a cheap rip-off.