Posted on 08/25/2016 5:24:13 PM PDT by Gamecock
Bucking against conservative Christian tradition advising against extra-marital sex, the Rev. Bromleigh McCleneghan, a married mother of three and associate pastor for ministry with families at Union Church of Hinsdale in Illinois, says single Christians can have sex as long as it's "mutually pleasurable and affirming."
Citing 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, many Mainline Protestant and evangelical churches like the Assemblies of God Church, advise against sexual relations among single Christians.
"Today within our society singles exist for one of two reasons — by choice, or by circumstance. In either case the Bible's mandate is clear for all unmarried individuals: they are to remain sexually pure (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)," the Assemblies of God church warned.
For McCleneghan, however, whose views are comprehensively captured in her new book, Good Christian Sex: Why Chastity Isn't the Only Option — And Other Things the Bible Says About Sex, single Christians don't need to abstain from sex to remain pure since being chaste is about moderation.
"American Christians sometimes conflate celibacy and chastity, too, which is a problem. Chastity is a virtue, related to temperance — it's about moderating our indulgences and exercising restraint. We're all called to exercise chastity in a variety of ways, though the details will vary given our individual situations," McCleneghan said in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
"In the official teaching of the Catholic Church and some other churches, however, chastity requires restraining oneself from indulging in sexual relationships outside of the bounds (and bonds) of marriage. That is, chastity for singles means celibacy — no sex. … I'd argue that we can be chaste — faithful — in unmarried sexual relationships if we exercise restraint: if we refrain from having sex that isn't mutually pleasurable and affirming, that doesn't respect the autonomy and sacred worth of ourselves and our partners," she explained.
McCleneghan believes it's unfair to ask single Christians who haven't been called to a life of celibacy to refrain from sexual intimacy when both men and women need sex.
"There are those who feel that they are called to seasons of celibacy, or even years of celibacy, and if answering that call is life-giving and purposeful, then they should take it up as a spiritual discipline. But no call can be forced on an unwilling person, especially not if they find themselves single only by virtue of circumstance," she wrote.
"Plenty of women and men love sex, and need it — we need bodily pleasure, remember — and the abundant life for them will involve seeking out relationships of mutual pleasure. Chastity, or just sex, requires that whether we are married or unmarried, our sex lives restrain our egos, restrain our desire for physical pleasure when pursuing it would bring harm to self or other," she added.
The Christian Post reached out to McCleneghan to further discuss her book on Monday but she was unavailable for comment at the time this story was published.
While some Christian scholars have offered praise for McCleneghan's views, not everyone thinks her advice is sound.
"We are to be Holy people, blameless and spotless unto Jesus Christ. One man and one woman married until death, not extra-marital affairs (adulterous behavior) even fornication. That is sin that will lead anyone to eternal Hell. Please show me Scripture that backs up your belief," wrote Trish Nastasi, a longtime married Christian woman on McCleneghan's Facebook page.
McCleneghan, who began her ministry at Hinsdale in July 2015, is responsible for worship, pastoral care, ministry leadership, teaching at the church. Her special focus is on helping people with children at home better their ability and commitment to raising those children in the Christian faith, according to the Church.
Documented source(s)?
Oh piffle; it’s just your opinion!
—Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
Who hired her?
Then, can I assume that, if our soldiers have a nocturnal emission, they should immediately separate from the camp until they can be made clean again so they can join their comrades that evening?
Exactly what changed vs. what did not change - you see to be putting yourself out there as one in the know and I would like to be educated in case you're right.
I guess it’s a good thing that Jesus dies for all our sins - past/present’future else Heaven would be an empty place.
No kidding.
Course all OUR sins were future to Jesus when He died.
You posted the example of food. God clearly overturned that one.
The NT is full of condemnation of sexual immorality.
Don’t like it? Take it up with God.
The “temptation” is that of sin. The original point I made was that particular behavior was not a sin because I get my definition of sin from violating a commandment which does not include fornication, only adultery.
There are more laws than the big 10.
Proudly whipped since late 70s admittedly
But the ones we committed before we were saved can be considered 'past> That doesn't remove the fact that He also died for the sinful acts we would commit after being saved.
I have taken it up with Him - often on a daily basis for any number of transgressions - I than k Him for his loving forgiveness .
suit yourself. Chose the religion you believe and I’ll do the same. Thanx anyway.
Me too - I have no doubts that without it I would be doomed.
He is Good!
Since nobody really attempted to answer the question you actually asked, i'll make an attempt to do so.
ANSWER: Can't say, don't know. HOWEVER, i do know of at least one congregation because they kept extensive records of marriage and births.
The verdict of THAT PARTICULAR CONGREGATION was that approximately 1/3 of the first children of that couple were conceived before marriage. You see many births six or seven months after the couple married.
This does not really answer your question because it is not a record of how many PEOPLE had sex before marriage. It is a record of babies conceived out of wedlock. i would imagine that the number of people having sex outside of marriage in that congregation over it's >100 year existence was higher. Not all sex results in offspring.
So the answer to your question is that "these days" doesn't really have a thing to do with it. This has been going on since Man appeared on Earth.
Speaking of that: Who said that Adam and Eve didn't have sex before the fall? i've heard some Natural Law arguments to the contrary but nobody who can appeal to scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.