A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady / And on Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady / And on Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

There are aspects of this editorial by Grady I agree with, some I do not.

My comments are below the excepts.

(Link): 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry

Excerpts:

    by J. Lee Grady

My wife and I raised four daughters — without shotguns in the house! — and three of them have already married. We love our sons-in-law, and it’s obvious God handpicked each of them to match our daughters’ temperaments and personality.

It's Magical

It’s Magical

I have always believed God is in the matchmaking business. If He can do it for my daughters, He can do it for you.

…. Today I have several single female friends who would very much like to find the right guy.

Some tell me the pickings are slim at their church, so they have ventured into the world of online dating. Others have thrown up their hands in despair, wondering if there are any decent Christian guys left anywhere.

They’ve begun to wonder if they should lower their standards in order to find a mate. My advice stands: Don’t settle for less than God’s best. Too many Christian women today have ended up with an Ishmael because impatience pushed them into an unhappy marriage.

Please take my fatherly advice: You are much better off single than with the wrong guy!

Speaking of “wrong guys,” here are the top 10 men you should avoid when looking for a husband:

1. The unbeliever. Please write 2 Corinthians 6:14 on a Post-it note and tack it on your computer at work. It says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (NASB).

This is not an outdated religious rule. It is the Word of God for you today. Don’t allow a man’s charm, looks or financial success (or his willingness to go to church with you) push you to compromise what you know is right. “Missionary dating” is never a wise strategy. If the guy is not a born-again Christian, scratch him off your list. He’s not right for you. I’ve yet to meet a Christian woman who didn’t regret marrying an unbeliever.

He goes on to list more Christian men he thinks a Christian single should not marry, including: the liar, the playboy, the dead beat, the control freak, the man child, the narcissist, the bum – and a few others.

I’m not even sure where to start with this.

First, let me say I enjoyed one or two points he made, and I agree with them, such as point #10,

10. The control freak.

Some Christian guys today believe marriage is about male superiority. They may quote Scripture and sound super-spiritual, but behind the façade of husbandly authority is deep insecurity and pride that can morph into spiritual abuse.

First Peter 3:7 commands husbands to treat their wives as equals. If the man you are dating talks down to you, makes demeaning comments about women or seems to squelch your spiritual gifts, back away now. He is on a power trip. Women who marry religious control freaks often end up in a nightmare of depression.

I applaud him on point #10 there, good job on point 10! Woo!

Point #9 (about avoiding the “man-child” category of adult males) isn’t altogether a bad point, either (I was engaged to a quasi man-child, and no, I did not enjoy it), but that point taken too far, or if over-emphasized, and we are getting into Mark Driscoll territory (click here for more on that), and lots of younger males in particular are deeply insulted by some of Driscoll’s views about men.

On the one hand, the guy who wrote this, Grady, assumes God will send you (you being a single Christian woman who wants to get married) the Christian man o’ your dreams.

If this is so, why does Grady make a long list telling single women not to marry a drug addict, bum, control freak, liar, etc?

If it were true that God just blessed single females with a “dream boat” of a Christian spouse, if they just trust God and pray about it, there would be no need for a woman to use her discernment and weed out the pigs, dogs, and liars from the Prince Charmings, and to have these lists of what sort of men to avoid marrying in the first place, now would there?

If you have bothered to read any other posts at this blog before, you know my deal.

But if you’re new, here’s a recap:

I’m over 40 years of age, raised a Christian, dreamed of being married, still single in my 40s, bought into evangelical/Baptist propaganda from my youth forwards that if I only trusted God for a spouse, stayed sexually pure, prayed, and waited, that God would deliver “Mr. Christian Right” to my front door. (I even tried dating sites, went to churches, volunteered at soup kitchens, etc., still no spouse.)

Despite all my waiting, praying, staying a virgin into adulthood, attending church, using dating sites, volunteering at charities, ‘looking to the kingdom first,’ and having faith, and all the other twaddle Christians tell you that you must do to earn or obtain a spouse – God never did send me a spouse.

And did I mention the part where I’m in my 40s now? It’s more than a bit ridiculous to keep telling women at my age to “keep praying, trusting” and all the usual advice these 50- year- old, married men issue to 15 or 23 year old single women.

That is one reason I cringe when I see Christians write comments such as these, by J. Lee Grady, who wrote on the page I excerpted above:

    …and it’s obvious God handpicked each of them [the husbands] to match our daughters’ temperaments and personality.

I have always believed God is in the matchmaking business. If He can do it for my daughters, He can do it for you.

Buddy, I don’t know how to tell you this… but God did not “hand pick” husbands for your daughters.

Your daughters simply dated around until they found a man they felt compatible with, and they got lucky. And who knows if all the marriages of all three of your daughters will last?

Maybe one or more of your daughters will divorce in the future. If one of them divorces, how will you stick to the belief that God “hand picked” their spouse for them?

Why would God “hand pick” a man for a woman only for their marriage to fall apart years later? If God did the spouse choosing, don’t you think there would be little to no divorce, rather than the 40 – 60% divorce rate among Christians we do have these days?

You have plenty of other single Christian women out there that prayed and waited, and God did not “hand pick” any husbands for them.

Yes, 2 Corinthians 6:14 is, contrary to what Grady states, an outdated biblical rule, especially in the United States of America, where studies I read say there are about three un-married, adult Christian women for every one un-married, adult Christian man.

That means about two out of three Christian women who are single who desire marriage (assuming they all want to marry) will be unable to marry a Christian man, because there are not enough Christian men for the ladies to marry.

The “be equally yoked” (or in the negative, “do not be unequally yoked”) is only serving to keep single Christian women who desire marriage indefinitely single – it sets up an unrealistic, unnecessary hurdle they must contend with in mate selection and in getting to the altar.

Not only that, but some Christians are not even clear on what “being equally yoked” really means. For example, some gender complementarians would tell single Christian women it is not enough for her to marry a Christian man, oh no, but the man she marries must also be one she feels she can “submit to,” or one who can be her “spiritual leader” or “spiritual head.”

Some preachers, such as Seattle’s Mark Driscoll, have also told women, or implied or alluded, to only marry a guy who has his own car and a steady job, on top of marrying only a Christian guy.

Driscoll also stated that Christian single women should NOT marry a Pro-Choice man, see this link:

(Link): Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

Although I do not agree with Regenerus (Christian college professor and author) on everything, he rightly pointed out over a year ago in an article that Christians are un-biblical to keep adding more and more criteria on Christian mate selection lists that they expect Christian single females to adhere to, because such criteria are keeping too many women single too long.

Here are some of Regenerus’ remarks from that article:

    Genuine interfaith marriage is a challenge I don’t recommend. But as marriage has shifted in purpose over time, many Christians have added layers of meaning onto Paul’s wise command.

“Unequally yoked” has evolved into a graded criterion for an optimal mate rather than a simple test for an acceptable one. This is a problem. Why? Spiritual maturity is not equally distributed among men and women in the peak marrying years. Quality survey data reveal only two serious, churchgoing evangelical men for every three comparable women.

Thus, one out of every three evangelical women is not in a position to marry a man who’s her “spiritual equal,” let alone “head.”

This elevated standard now translates — for women, at least — to something like this: “Find that uncommon man who is your spiritual equal or leader, not to mention kind, virtuous, industrious, employed, and, if possible, handsome, and then figure out how to make him want to marry you.”

A tall order it is.

As a result of the increasing “failure to launch,” evangelicals find themselves saying lots of nice things about the benefits of singleness (which certainly do exist), but seem unwilling to move their boundary stones for marriage. Except that they have moved them, away from acceptability and toward ideals. It’s not a surprising move, since marriage is far more voluntary and economically unnecessary for women (and men) today than it was as recently as 50 years ago.

(Link): source 1 (Link): source 2

Basically, not only are Christian singles told to hold out for ONLY another Christian single, but if they are female, and depending on which type of church or denomination they belong to, they are also told they can only marry a Christian man IF he meets one or more of the following criteria:

      1. she can picture herself submitting to him;
      2. he is more spiritually mature than her;
      3. (if in an IFB church), he must be King James Version Only;

4. (if in a Neo Calvinist church), he must be a Calvinist

You might as well also add other, too narrow, picky, and ridiculous requirements for a spouse, such as, in addition to being a Christian single man (which are very rare to start with), the man in question must :

    1. the man must have one blue eye and one green eye;

2. the man must own a pet llama named Henry;

3. the man must have a hobby of collecting Mego Star Trek figures;

4. the man must have the habit of picking all blue M&M candies out from every package of M&M candy he opens

5. the man’s favorite day of the week must be Tuesday;

6. The man’s middle name must start with the letter “Q”

The longer one makes a “list of criteria for a martial partner” the smaller the pool of eligible mates one has to choose from.

I really do not think most Christians appreciate this fact – and it’s common sense, but it sails right over the heads of most married Christians who dole out this useless advice to singles.

Grady says,

    I’ve yet to meet a Christian woman who didn’t regret marrying an unbeliever.

And I’ve seen a fair share of online testimonies by Christian women who did marry a Non Christian and have no regrets about it. They say they have happy marriages and are doing just fine.

I wonder if part of the stubborn insistence by Christians that single Christian women should break up with a Non-Christian man (even if they are in love with him), and “trust God” to send them a Christian guy later on, is a denial that there are simply not enough Christian men for Christian ladies to marry.

Christian apologist William Craig Lane unfortunately seems to assume if a Christian single woman is dating a Non-Christian man, that if she breaks up with the guy, that in his good time, God will send her, or reward her with, a Christian husband – but this is not true (see this page, off site: (Link): Marrying a Non Christian, reply by William Lane Craig).

A lot of Christian women find themselves waiting, waiting, waiting for a Christian spouse, just as Lane Craig and others advise – and die never having married.

And bear in mind that Craig admits in that answer on that page that he’s been married to a Christian women for 30 or whatever years – I notice that frequently when Christians who tell hurting, lonely singles to stay single while “waiting on God for a spouse,” they are themselves MARRIED and have BEEN MARRIED FOR DECADES.

How EASY it is for YOU, married guy of 30 years, to tell 25, 35, 45 year old women who WANT marriage, but who are SINGLE, to keep tossing out suitable men, one after the other, just because they are not Christian.

Give me a break. This is nothing but a cruel, devious trick that is unnecessarily keeping droves of single Christian women single indefinitely, or well into their 40s and older.

Over a year ago, I found a long thread on a Christian forum where many Christians who had married atheists and other types of Non Christians talked about their marriage experiences, and many of the Christian women said their marriages to their unbelieving spouses were fine.

There was no abuse, their unbelieving spouses did not cheat on them, respected their faith, and so forth. If I can find that discussion I will link to it. I can’t remember the name of the forum I found those testimonies on.

If you google it, you can of course find a ton of lay-persons on the internet claiming that a Christian to a Non Christian marriage will end in failure and heartbreak – but again, I’ve come across plenty of positive testimonies about it as well. I don’t think Christian to Non-Christian marriage is necessarily doomed to failure.

I preface the link, which is much farther below to an atheist blog page, by saying this: I notice that often times atheists take the “be not yoked” teaching as a personal slam against atheists, which it’s not intended to be, not from the Christian view.

When Christians talk about being married to only other Christians, they are not suggesting that atheists are evil trash and not good enough for Christian companionship.

I mean, look it, you have a lot of Christians who fall in love with a person who is an atheist (or agnostic), and then they run to a preacher asking, “Is it a sin for me, a Christian to marry this atheist? I’d really like to marry him/her, but he/she is an unbeliever, and I don’t know what to do.”

In other words, if all Christians every where thought of all atheists as being evil idiot dirt balls, you would not see this question raised to start with, because you would not have Christians dating and falling in love with atheists (and other types of Non-Christians).

The “be not yoked” teaching is more pro-Christian and supported out of concern for the Christian’s spiritual well being, and is not “anti atheist.”

The teaching is mainly spoken out of concern that a Christian who marries a non-believer might have his or her faith compromised, or the atheist spouse may act as an obstacle to the believing spouse serving God, attending church, and so forth.

It’s a pro-Christian teaching, not anti-atheist, but a lot of atheists choose to misinterpret it in that way. Like the guy on this page below does – the guy who runs the “Friendly Atheist” blog.

I sometimes visit the Friendly Atheist’s blog and even agree with him at times on some subjects, but not totally on the “be not yoked” teaching, where he takes the teaching as an intentional insult against atheists.

I do, however, agree with some of this other views on the issue, which you can read about here:

(Link): Friendly Atheist blog: Can Atheists Marry Christians… and Make It Last?, by Hemant Mehta

That page even has quotes from a friend of Mehta (the atheist blogger guy) who is a Christian, Alise Wright, who is married to an atheist. He gets her take on the situation. Here is one quote by Alise Wright on his page:

    Due to our differences in faith, my husband [who is an atheist] and I [who am a Christian] have had to work on our ability to communicate a bit more.

It requires us to find the areas where our common ethos meet and build on that. It requires us to be more generous and more forgiving with one another because we are determined not to be another statistic in the broken marriage category. Interfaith marriages are happening.

Rather than simply saying, “Don’t do that,” the Church needs to look for ways to encourage couples who are in these marriages instead of leaving them to their own devices.

If we truly want to recognize marriage as something beautiful and sacred, then we need to provide tools to help those who have married someone outside of the Christian faith find that in their spouse and in their marriage. I agree with those sentiments above.

Grady ends his editorial, “10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry,” by saying,

    Your smartest decision in life is to wait for a man who is sold out to Jesus.

Er, no. I’m in my early 40s and still not married. You are, when you get down to it, asking me to stay single until I die. No thank you.

God has done didley squat NOTHING up to this point to send me a spouse, so I have to take matters into my own hands, which means getting back on to the dating horse once more, but this time, when I do, I will not be eliminating Non-Christians from the pool of candidates.

I leave you with this image, and a few comments below it:

Single Christian Woman Waiting for the Perfect Christian Mr. Right Christians Told Her God Would Send Her

Single Christian Woman Waiting for the Perfect Christian Mr. Right Christians Told Her God Would Send Her

By the way, what of the ten men on that list that Grady names, the liar, bum, etc.? Is Grady saying such men, if they desire marriage, will never, ever get a spouse?

Is he saying God will deny such males spouses, and they are doomed to die alone and single?

Does Grady believe such men will have to clean up their acts before God will allow them a spouse?

I hate to break it to Grady, but I have a bazillion examples on my blog of Christian men who got married who turned out to be drug addicts, rapists, burglars, serial rapist, porn addicts, pedophiles, and cheaters.

You can read some of those examples here:

(Link): Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

Obviously, God does not expect a person to “clean up” his act before allowing him (or her) to marry.

Of course, I doubt many women would want to marry a man who is a liar, cheat, bum, or man-child, so it may behoove such men to clean themselves up on those grounds, but I don’t see any evidence that God prohibits jerks, idiots, and loons from marrying; quite the contrary, my blog has many examples of jerks, abusers, idiots and loons who got Christian spouses in spite of all their sins, defects, and character flaws.

—————————-

EDIT. I do not know who originally drew the skeleton lady sitting on a bench drawing you see above. I’ve seen it around the internet forever. I would love to give the original creator credit, but I have no idea who made it. I changed it a little to add text to it.
————————–
Edit, March 22, 2014

This guy (Steve Strang) apparently feels Grady’s editorial is awesome – it’s not.

One reason Grady’s piece took off like wildfire on social media is because Grady’s article was copied to liberal Christian groups and sites who thought it was awful. That is one reason why a lot of people shared it on Facebook and tweeted it all over town – to ridicule it and criticize it, not laud and praise it.

(Link): Why Did Millions of Christian Women Share This Article? by Steve Strang

Though I do agree in part with Deb, who left this remark on the Charisma News site – she is right that churches ignore adult single celibates and instead opine about the already-married:

by Deb

    That article went viral because it spoke to a need that’s not being met in the church. Men & women in the church need honest, direct guidance in navigating the waters of single life.

    The church on the whole, including those singles, would rather put on a front that everyone is celibate and reading the Bible when they go on a date.

    Those “dating waters” are treacherous! There are sharks and snakes everywhere! I only spent about two years in those waters–I divorced a “serial adulterer” after over 30 years– but I got an eye-opening education in those two years and at times nearly drowned.

    I think I met every man listed in J. Lee Grady’s article. He is so on-point! I could write a book on being a Christian single in today’s world!

    Just by observing the other singles, I realized I shouldn’t date men in church.

    From what I saw, the men dated outside the church because they wanted to have sex but not have to face the woman in church on Sunday.

    Churches need singles groups that tackle the issues of singleness frankly instead of turning a blind eye to the fact that their singles are having sex, getting pregnant, getting diseases and dealing with all manner of sexual perversion while still being active members of the church.

    This environment is creating people with a seared conscience.

    We must bring righteousness and holiness back into the church, along with a strong dose of truth and honesty. Truthfully, that must start with our leaders’ behavior.

    Being single and celibate in today’s society is very difficult. They need a strong support group and strategies to succeed at being single and dating.

    For me, when I was ready to get married again, I stopped “dating”. I stopped communicating with the men in whom I was interested. I prayed for God to show me to my future husband….I prayed that my husband would find me.

    He did <3

My tweet to Strang:

A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady http://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/a-critique-of-10-men-christian-women-should-never-marry-by-j-lee-grady-and-on-christians-marrying-non-christians-and-unrealistic-too-rigid-spouse-selection-lists-by-christians/ @sstrang
—————————-
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Typical Incorrect Conservative Christian Assumption: If you want marriage bad enough, Mr. Right will magically appear

(Link): American Christian Divorce Rates Vs Atheists and Other Groups – throws a pall over Christian Fairy Tale Teachings about Marriage

(Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ Christians divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors

(Link): 21 Year old, Devout Christian and Student, Children’s Minister Charged With Murdering Fiancée He Was to Wed in August; Made It Look Like Suicide – Christian Single Women: Another Example of Why You Should Abandon the “Be Equally Yoked” Teaching

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

(Link): Married Christian Woman Sexually Preys on Kids At Phillips’ Family-Worshipping Church – Married People Not More Godly Than Singles – Married Sex Must Not Be As Hot As Christians Teach

(Link): More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)

(Link): Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

(Link): Self Professing Christian Married Guy of 21 Years and Father of Two Admits to Being a Pervy Unfaithful Rat Bastard Who Uses Cheating Sites to Hook Up With Greedy Vapid 20 Somethings

(Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Xtian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb! Also: Marriage and Parenthood do not make people more godly or mature or loving or ethical

(Link): Baptist Preacher Arrested for Allegedly Fire Bombing Ex Girlfriend’s House While She Was In It – Another Example of Why the Equally Yoked Teaching is A Joke for Single Christian Women

(Link): Beware of HIV / AIDS Infected Christian Male Preachers On Dating Sites
—————————————
My response to Deb on the Charisma News site, mentioned above:

    Deb, I agree with some of what you wrote, but differ on one or two points. I did not care for parts of Grady’s editorial, however.

    I wrote a blog post about it (Christian Pundit on Word Press), called “A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady / And on Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians”

    As I said on my blog, Grady made one or two points I agreed with, and a few I did not.

    I can’t share your passive approach to dating, however. I am over 40, female, never married, was a Christian for many years, was taught to simply pray, wait, have faith and God would send me a spouse, yet I remain never-married into my 40s. There are many other single, adult Christian females in the same position as myself.

    If you want to get married you will have to date. Dating is not fun or pleasant, but it is something a woman must do if she wants to get married.

    Even men who claim to be Christians on dating sites I’ve run across are sex-obsessed pigs who don’t even attempt to live celibate, single lives, as they should be doing, since the Bible teaches sex is for marriage only.

    But you have to wade through the muck of the dating world to get married. God does not magically grant most women with a spouse who simply pray, hope, and wait for one.

    If that worked for you, great, but that passive “wait, trust, and pray” has not worked for lots of single Christian women who find themselves still single past the age of 35 and 40.

    I do agree with you that most churches and denominations ignore adult, single celibates and sexual purity standards. I am still a virgin at my age, and churches ignore celibate adults who are over 30, and they also tend to ignore the divorced, childless married couples, and widows / widowers.

    I have seen virginity and celibacy mocked and downplayed, even by Christians in the past few years, everyone from the more liberal Christians (which I would expect) but also by self professing conservatives, such as Southern Baptist Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and blogger Tim Challies.

    Conservative Christians actually diminish sexual purity now and feel it’s impossible for anyone to remain a virgin past age 25 / 30, even though plenty have accomplished that.

    So many Christian women (and a smattering of male ones, but it’s mostly female) are now saying they found sexual purity and virginity teachings they heard while in church, or in other Christian material and venues when they were younger, to be so incredibly guilt- or shame- provoking (because they voluntarily chose to engage in pre- marital sex at an earlier time), that conservative, Christian males (and some females) and entire Christian groups (such as “Focus on the Family”) are now writing many blog pages and articles downplaying celibacy and virginity.

    Tim Challies (who is a famous Christian blogger) went so far at to say on one of his blog pages a few months ago that “even fornicators are virgins now” to soothe the guilty feelings of fornicators who read his blog.

    Christian television host Pat Robertson recently said on his TV show that virginity was for Mary (mother of Jesus) only, when a viewer wrote in asking a question about sexual purity.

    Guys like Robertson feel that hetero pre marital sex is inevitable, unavoidable, and that churches should teach an “easy breezy” forgiveness message about sexual sin. His view on this is common among other Christians these days.

    There are other examples, but that should suffice. Christians are no longer upholding adult celibacy, or the notion of staying a virgin until marriage, even if one is over the age of 25; they are not telling fornicators to repent of the fornication / sexual sin. (Some Christians object to the term “fornicate” itself these days, it’s considered too judgy or “old fogey.”)

    Even main stream Christian groups and denominations have caved in to secular culture on sexual issues, and act as though hetero sexual sin is no big deal. Some will condemn homosexuality til the cows come home, but dismiss hetero sin of the sexual variety.

    Though, strangely, I have seen some Christians (who are hetero) who feel so sorry for homosexual singles, they say they are fine and peachy with homosexuals having pre marital sex, but these types of Christians still feel that hetero singles must abstain – it’s a sexual double standard.

New Christian Sex Propaganda: Supposedly Traditional Gender Roles Equals More, Better Sex

New Christian Sex Propaganda: Supposedly Traditional Gender Roles Equals More, Better Sex

I give this newest Christian propaganda about sex the same weight as I do other forms of previous Christian sex propaganda, such as, “if you wait until marriage to have sex, the sex will be spectacular and regular.”

Well, that has turned out not to be true, based on all the Christian (and some Non Christian) people I’ve read about or seen on TV who say they were virgins until marriage, and then the sex was lousy or dwindled down to zero times a month (see this link for examples).

By the way, as you can see from my link that has many examples, Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread), married Christian sex does not keep married Christian men (and sometimes wives) from having affairs, raping people, using porn, or paying for prostitutes.

If being a married Christian – whether complementarian or egalitarian regarding gender roles – kept married couples immune from sexual sin, you would not see the sort of news stories I keep track of in that post, of married couples being porn addicts, having affairs, and using prostitutes.

At least a few Christians were quoted in this who did not agree.

Here we go:
(Link): Gender Roles in Marriage (Part1): Couples in Traditional Marriage Roles Have More Sex, Study Finds

    Excerpt: BY TYLER O’NEIL , CP REPORTER
    February 17, 2014|10:29 am

    A recent study suggests that married couples will have more sex and be less likely to divorce if they assume more traditional gender roles where the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income. Some experts disagree, however, over whether or not the study supports these gender roles within a Christian a marriage.

    “I don’t do theology by polling, but I’m glad to cite any study that shows God’s blessing of following His plan for men and women,” said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. “This particular study gives evidence that there definitely are differences between men and women – that men are called to provide and there’s a certain mystery to manhood that draws women,” Strachan told The Christian Post in a recent interview.

    … Mimi Haddad, president of (Link): Christians for Biblical Equality, vehemently disagrees. “Biology is not destiny; following Christ is destiny,” Haddad declared in an interview with CP on Wednesday.

    Haddad asserts that “marriage today is more about self-satisfaction and self-gratification, whereas in earlier days it was about serving the world, serving God.” Rather than worrying about how much fun they will have in the bedroom, Christians should focus on maximizing their service to God and others.

    …Mark Yarhouse, a Christian expert on sexual identity and author of Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry, explains that “our culture is a little caught up on sexual activity.” He mentioned worldwide studies that reveal the value of sexual egalitarianism for intimacy.

    Yarhouse cited Edward Laumann’s sexual survey involving 27,000 people across the world, investigating “nations where there are pretty rigid cultural norms verses more egalitarian social norms.” In such broad studies, Yarhouse reported, “you are seeing greater satisfaction in the countries that would be more likely to be egalitarian.” People in such societies tend to be interested in satisfying the desires of both partners, so the quality of intimacy is greater.

    “When you’re in a culture where men are more traditional and those gaps are more significant, you may have practices and habits that are less fulfilling to the female,” Yarhouse explained.

Note that this article quotes Strachan, who is a sexist clown.

To read one rebuttal of some of his views, please see this link (from Rachel Held Evans – whom I disagree with on some topics, but I am totally with her on the gender complementarian topic):

(Link): If men got the Titus 2 Treatment… (on Rachel Held Evan’s blog, addressing a blog post by Owen Strachan)

Anyhoooooo. It’s fascinating that Christians feel the need to keep pouring on incentives to stop people from fooling around outside of marriage.

Christians can’t just quote the parts of the Bible that say fornication is a no-no, they have to quote studies that claim your married sex life will be rocking if only you do “X” or avoid “Z.”

Or, this may be serving to bolster sexist “biblical womanhood” and gender complementarian unbiblical nonsense.

One great thing about getting off the Baptist and evangelical merry-go-round is not having to give a crap about these things so much. I don’t let them guide my life anymore. But I do feel sad and offended for people still sucked into these world views and lifestyles.
——————————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): False Christian Hype About Waiting Until Marriage For Sex – We’ve Gone From “It’s Mindblowing” to Now: “It’s Magical” Re: Timothy Keller / Tim Keller Virginity Celibacy Singles PreMarital Sex

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Do men really have higher sex drives than women? (article/study)

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): Gotta Maintain that Propaganda that Married Christian Sex is “Mind Blowing”

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

I usually blog about my views about singleness and marriage, but as I find myself questioning the Christian faith, I sometimes like to make the occasional posts about that too.

Even though I sort of find myself not entirely grasping the Christian faith any longer (I am somewhere between agnostic and Christian), my understanding of spiritual matters or the Bible tend to be consistent with an orthodox (note the little “o” – I have actually had people confuse “orthodox” with “Greek Orthodox” – no, I do not mean “orthodox” as in the “Greek Orthodox” church or denomination) and conservative views and understandings.

As far as that goes, I believe in sola scriptura – but not in what I have deemed “hyper sola scriptura.”

God sometimes spoke to believers in the Old and New Testaments via inward thoughts of the Holy Spirit, via angelic messengers, dreams, handwriting on walls, prophets, via creation (ie, nature, as the book of Romans mentions), etc.

I see nothing in the New Testament which says God halted using any and all extra-scriptural means to communicate with followers of Jesus.

I do believe that Christians should check their beliefs against the written word, and if their dream, vision, or belief conflicts with the written word, they need to really reconsider it. (I have written about things like this before, like in this post: (Link): Contemporary American Christianity’s Fascination with NDE Stories – and in one or two other posts.)

What annoys me are the “hyper sola scriptura” type of Christians who automatically brush off, or brush aside, the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let’s say you are a Christian who’s going through a tough time, and you prayed about it, and you felt God spoke to you inwardly and told you something about your situation, or God spoke some word of comfort. I believe something like that is orthodox and not un-scriptural.

I believe God the Holy Spirit can and does still communicate with people that way – but your hyper sola scripture-ist will scoff at that.

Many of the HSSs are probably tempted to chalk something like that up to superstition or believe it borders on WoF (Word of Faith) theology (I do not agree with WoF, by the way).

Do I think some Christians are too quick to attribute a thought or feeling to God, or that they don’t read the Bible enough, and that this can be dangerous or problematic and lead to Christians accepting false beliefs or teachings? Yes.

But it still remains God gifted believers with the Holy Spirit to guide them at times, because sometimes, the Bible is not always crystal clear on some topics, or does not explicitly mention others.

The Bible does not, for example, instruct people on which college they should attend, what they should major in, and what career they should pursue after graduating, and those are all fairly serious life questions.

You cannot flip to Galatians chapter 4 or Hebrews chapter 2 to find a ‘biblical’ answer to the question, “What career should I enter into?”

One of the things I find odd about HSSs (Hyper Sola Scripturists) is that they almost seem – like atheists – to deny the supernatural.

I mean, HSSs will admit to belief in supernatural events already recorded in the Bible, such as Jesus being born of a virgin and Jesus walking on water, but they behave as though God never, ever, interferes in a miraculous way in the world today, and I see nothing in the Bible that says He does not.

I’m not even talking about “speaking in tongues.” You have Christians today who fuss and bicker about “is that gift for today or not?” I don’t know if that gift is for today or not, but that sort of thing is not really what I am discussing in this post.

Continue reading

Pat Robertson says ‘Virginity Has Nothing To Do With Marriage’ and Says (Paraphrasing) ‘Virginity Was Fine For Mary But Not Applicable For Any Other Christians’

Pat Robertson says ‘Virginity Has Nothing To Do With Marriage’ and Says (Paraphrasing) ‘Virginity Was Fine For Mary But Not Applicable For Any Other Christians’

This is the second or third time in the past year or so that Christian TV personality Pat Robertson has pretty much said that God or the Bible do not teach that Christians are to abstain from pre-marital sex.

Robertson tends to “gloss over” sexual sin committed by heterosexuals, as though it’s not a big deal, which makes it harder for hetero people who are still single and virgins in their 40s, such as me, to continue to hold on, to continue to find compelling reasons not to sleep around.

(But then, I’ve begun a slow drift away from the Christian faith the last couple years, so maybe some of this is not applicable to me, but it bothers me to see that it is impacting single people who are still squarely in the faith.)

I have noticed any time Robertson classifies homosexuality as sinful that left wing sites jump all over him, but they fall silent when he basically endorses hetero pre- marital sexual sin or writes it off as being a non-issue. (Nice double standard the liberals have there.)

I don’t see any Christian speakers or media personalities calling out Robertson on his anti- virginity views, and I have blogged about them before (like here: (Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”).

(Robertson also sometimes takes a lax view towards men who cheat on their wives, which is also troubling.)

You can watch / listen to the video under discussion in this post here:
(Link): ‘Bring It On’ – Robertson Answers Questions From Viewers – CBN site (broadcast Feb 11, 2014)
-That same video is also embedded at the bottom of this post, via You Tube-

The question (viewer letter) we are interested in for the purpose of this post is the third or fourth letter in the video.

The letter from the married woman to Robertson in the video reads:

    I met my husband in church at a time I was a virgin.

    He was divorced with two kids, having left his wife after she cheated on him. Within weeks, I was living with him and got pregnant by him.

    We have since married and have been together three years, but now I feel like I betrayed God because I didn’t marry a virgin, had pre-marital sex, and had a child out of wedlock.

    My husband and I get along great and never argue, but I feel like I should start over. Should I stay married, or leave him and become celibate?
    - Viewer

I notice that Pat gets these sorts of letters with regularity, about once every 3 – 4 months; someone will say they were a virgin but then slept around, or whatever, then married the guy, then want to know if God wants them to divorce the spouse.

How can people be so ignorant and naive? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

While I don’t believe that the Bible teaches a “permanence” view of marriage (e.g., I don’t believe the Bible teaches an abused woman has to stay with her abusive spouse forever), it does hold marriage in pretty high esteem – which means, you would be heaping sin on top of sin to divorce the dude just because you had pre-marital sex with him.

Anyway, Robertson’s response to her was to diminish virginity, as is his habit when people write to him with questions about virginity and celibacy. Why is Robertson not being called out for this unbiblical position? Why are other Christians remaining silent?

Here is Robertson’s reply (this is my paraphrase, it may not be word- for- word; the site does not provide a transcript, so I’m typing this as I am listening to the audio; emphasis added by me to the text):

    [Pat Robertson responding to woman's letter]

    Wow. You know it’s amazing this guy is a Christian yet… this man, he’s married and is seducing a woman two weeks after he met her, he’s having sex with her. Within two weeks? [Or weeks?]

    He must have really put the move on you really heavy. You must have been pretty willing. All right, but.

    But the subject, the fact that you weren’t a virgin or he wasn’t a virgin has nothing to do with marriage.

    There’s nothing in the Bible that disqualifies somebody, ‘well you gotta marry and you weren’t a virgin.’ I don’t know anything in the Bible that talks about that.

    That was fine for Mary, she was a virgin, but she was… what was in her was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God. All right.

    So you’ve been married, you have a child, you have what is apparently a Christian husband, the reason for his divorce was infidelity of the spouse, so…. that’s okay; and I see no reason why you should not live a happy married life.

    You’re doing OK together, so rejoice in what you have. Don’t be coming up with all these spurious problems.

    I mean you now… so far, so good.

    You made some mistakes, you did something wrong, but you have rectified that and now you’re living according to God’s law, so enjoy.

    Forgive yourself, God will forgive you, it’s over, no you don’t want a divorce and start all over again, that makes no sense at all.

True enough, the Bible does not say that non-virgins are not “marriage material,” but, the Bible does make a case for virginity in being the expectation for singles, in passages that discuss that the marriage bed should not be defiled, the penalty for fornication in the Old Testament was stoning to death (which indicates God is not fine with people having pre-marital sex, only that the penalty changed in the New Testament), and the Bible says if one cannot control one’s sexual passions, one should try to get married – which suggests having sex prior to marriage is frowned upon by God.

In other words, the Bible may not declare “non virgins are not marriagable” but the assumption still seems to be, “followers of Christ are to remain virgins until marriage.”

It’s rather disingenuous, therefore, for Robertson and other Christians to teach, in a round about way, that virginity is not a “requirement” for marriage for Christians – because it still is.

Fornication is a forgivable sin, yes, but still remains a sin never-the-less, and no matter how many fornicators feel shamed, guilty, or dirty over that knowledge.

The Bible may not “disqualify” a fornicator from marriage and forbid virgins from marrying non-virgins, but the Bible still teaches that Christians are to remain virgins until marriage.

Your shame or guilt feelings do not negate that the Bible classifies some behavior as sinful.

Perhaps one of the oddest views Robertson spouts in the video is where he seems to imply that virginity- until- marriage was a quality and discipline and state of being which God expected only of Mary (who was betrothed to Joseph) and no other human before or since; that is simply not biblical.

There ARE Christian adults, who are over 30, 40, and older, who are still virgins, who have never married – there are also some adult, divorced Christians who are staying celibate after they have divorced.

How do you suppose it makes such Christians feel to be surrounded by a Christian culture that just shrugs its shoulders about pre- or extra-marital sex, as if fornication is not a sin, and God winks at it?

I’ll tell you, and as I said above: it makes it harder and harder for adult celibates to hang in there.

What is the point in me staying sexually pure, when so many Christian talking heads say, “Nah, God does not REALLY expect you to abstain. If you slip up and fool around, just forgive yourself. God created you to be sexual. Just get over it and move on. Virginity is not for marriage.”

This type of rationale, meant to soothe the guilty feelings of fornicators, removes any incentive for an adult virgin to remain a virgin.

Doesn’t the Bible say don’t do or say anything that may cause a sister in Christ to stumble?

I’m not asking for Christian fornicators to be bashed in the heads with rocks by church- going mobs, but I’d like to see a little more accountability in this area, instead of an, “aw shucks, we all fornicate, don’t worry about it” lax attitude from Christians.

You see where Robertson said,

    That was fine for Mary, she was a virgin, but she was… what was in her was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God. All right.

I have noticed that the usual evangelical or conservative Christian response to singleness, virginity, and celibacy is to respect all three conditions ONLY when discussing certain Bible figures, such as Jesus or Paul, or in the case of Robertson today, with Mary.

As to those Christian adults who are singles and virgins in this day and age, there is no support for us; we are expected to fornicate.

(Or, in other branches of conservative and liberal Christian thought today, hetero singles are expected to abstain, but homosexual singles are not, which I have blogged about before as well).

Anyway, I blogged about that odd and frustrating phenomenon before, where virginity and singleness are respected only in regards to Jesus, Paul, and Mary, here:
(Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?

Feb 11, 2014 video of Pat Robertson saying that virginity is not for marriage, and only for Mary (Mother of Jesus):


——————————–
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): Christian Early Marriage Position Advocates A Low View of Celibacy and Virginity and Adult Singleness – another example: Justin Deeter Blog about Early Marriage

(Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

(Link): Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage – their marketing has been jeered by ex Christians, atheists, liberal Christians, and secular left wingers / Re: Day of Purity Campaign

(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias, Has Incorrect and Unbiblical Views about Celibacy

(Link): I thought Christians “worshipped” virginity? Guess not: TLW (True Love Waits) Spokesman Says TLW Will NOT “Elevate Virginity” – Life Way to Relaunch “True Love Waits” Campaign

(Link): Where Are America’s Virgins? Discouraging the Virtuous / Sex and Never Married Single Christians / Virginity Virgin by Julia Duin

(Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re: Celibacy

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link): Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Famous Historical Christian Figure Expects Everyone To Fail At Sexual Purity

(Link): Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – Easy Forgivism

Over 10 Million Men of Prime Working Age Are Unemployed in the US and Experts Think It’s Causing Declining Marriage Rates

Over 10 Million Men of Prime Working Age Are Unemployed in the US and Experts Think It’s Causing Declining Marriage Rates

I believe I’ve covered this story before too, if not in its own post, I know I mentioned it in passing in another one months ago.

Do you now what I find most moronic about this? The Southern Baptist solution to declining marriage rates is to scream at people: “MARRY YOUNG! MARRY EARLY! Marry before you turn 25!!!!”

Clearly, marriage is declining for several factors, not just that people are putting it off longer.

Another thing that bothers me about the “just marry early!!” simplistic advice from Al Mohler and other Southern Baptists is that the age at which one gets married is something one has little control over.

I did not get my first boyfriend until my late 20s (past the age of 25). How was I supposed to marry before age 25, as Southern Baptists advocate, when I did not even have a boyfriend at that point? I could not wave a magic wand and make one appear from thin air.

Christians definitely have this “Magical Marriage Fairy Tale” view. They assume that if you want marriage bad enough, then poof, Mr. Right will just happen to appear in your life (and already on one knee, with ring in hand), and when you want him to – like, if you are dying to marry before age 25, he’ll show up before then, they think.

Or, if you want to marry by the age of 30, Mr. Right, they think, will just happen to show up when you are 27 or 28.

I’ve discussed that Magical Marriage Fairy Tale before (Link): here. Just wanting something badly doesn’t mean it’s going to just happen.

Anyway, here is the story that guys are not getting married as much and probably due to the poor economy:

(Link): Over 10 Million Men of Prime Working Age Are Unemployed in the US and Experts Think It’s Causing Declining Marriage Rates

Excerpt:

    BY LEONARDO BLAIR , CP REPORTER
    February 7, 2014|12:48 pm

    More than 10 million men, or one out of every six in the 25 to 54 age bracket, are unemployed in the United States, and only about one third of them say they are actively seeking jobs. Experts believe this dire condition could also be causing declining marriage rates.

    “Some of them are looking for jobs. Two-thirds say they aren’t. Some are supported by families or friends; men without jobs are far less likely to be married than men with jobs. About 2 million of these prime-age men are on Social Security Disability Insurance,” said David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution in a report Thursday.

    Noting the acute and chronic nature of the unemployment situation among men, Wessel said it was a result of the slow recovery of the U.S. economy from the Great Recession as well as a shift away from the types of work popular among men before the recession. Even as the economy improves, however, he pointed out that employment troubles among men is likely to persist.

—————
Related posts:

(Link): Just Say No – For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers. (Not enough eligible single men for women to marry) by N. Cahn and J. Carbone

(Link): Woman’s First Marriage at Age 40+

(Link): First Time Marriage for Man and Woman Both Over Age 40

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): Christian Early Marriage Position Advocates A Low View of Celibacy and Virginity and Adult Singleness – another example: Justin Deeter Blog about Early Marriage

Bad News for Male Christians Over 30 Who Have Never Married – The Bill Gothard Scandal is Being Used to Stigmatize Never Married Adult Christian Men

Bad News for Male Christians Over 30 Who Have Never Married – The Bill Gothard Scandal is Being Used to Stigmatize Never Married Adult Christian Men

Please go back and see my last post ((Link): “Never Married Christians Giving Marital Advice – The Double Standard”) if you want to know who Bill Gothard is.

All I will say about Gothard here is that he’s over 70 years of age, a very famous Christian in certain circles, and he has never married.

A bunch of women who are now in their 40s or there abouts have been coming out of the woodwork to say the dude was inappropriate with them when they worked at his place when they were in their teens or 20s.

Continue reading

Never Married Christians Giving Marital Advice – The Double Standard

Never Married Christians Giving Marital Advice – The Double Standard

I am about to make a post about Christian speaker Bill Gothard in a moment.

Gothard is a famous Christian dude. He’s the founder or head of something called Institute in Basic Life Principles. Here is (Link): his Wiki page.

I guess Gothard must be over 80 years old now, if his bio on Wiki is correct (or not, if my math sucks or their page’s birth year for him is wrong). He has never married.

One of the things Gothard is famous for is being a Christian speaker and writing lots of books and manuals about how to live the Christian life, including commentary on marriage.

Now, there is some never-married Christian woman who is a mouth piece for gender complementarian group CBWM. She is a speaker at CBMW conferences, she writes books about relationships and marriage. This woman has never married. I cannot remember her name.

Here’s what bugs me. Any time Gothard or this CBMW woman are mentioned on blogs or sites, Christians snort in derision: “How can he/she give family, sex, and marriage advice when he/she has never married and probably never had sex? That’s pretty rich.”

I sometimes find myself annoyed by that objection because many times, married Christians – ones who have been married since they were 20 years of age, who are now 50 or 60 – teach and lead adults singles classes.

Many churches will not permit an adult single who is 30 lead a class of adult singles who are 30, or will not permit an adult single who is 40 to lead and teach a group of 40 year old singles, etc.

Churches insist on married people filling those duties, which is not biblical. The Bible nowhere forbids single adults from leading and teaching.

Yet other than a few older singles such as myself, nobody questions or disputes the stupidity of having a 50 year old man who has been married for 20 – 30 years leading a class of 35 or 45 year old never married singles.

Why do so many Christians think it fine or normal for a 47 year old married man to lead a Sunday School class or seminar for never-married 37 year olds, but these same Christians laugh, ridicule, or balk at the idea of a 45 year old virgin teaching about sex or marriage?

If you have read my blog here, you can see that although I’ve never had sex, I’m not ignorant about sex or sexual acts. I was in a long term, serious, committed relationship, so I do know what that entails.

The double standard and hypocrisy from Christians can be infuriating at times: they are peachy keen with married adults teaching single adults about relationships, but not the other way around.

Considering that divorce rates are 40% – 50% (even for Christian couples), married people are not more qualified to lecture about marriage than a never married adult.

If people think that never married adults over 30 should not teach, discuss, or opine about sex or marriage, than neither should married people over 30 be permitted to opine or teach about singleness and celibacy.

Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

(Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

Excerpt (you will have to click the link above if you want to read the rest):

    He [Southern Baptist Al Mohler] also spoke of the “holiness of marriage as the central crucible for adult-making” and of the ill of single women putting off wife- and motherhood to establish their careers.

    He urged the singles in attendance at that conference to make getting married their top priority. “What is the ultimate priority God has called us to?” Mohler asked. “In heaven, is the crucible of our saint-making going to have been through our jobs? I don’t think so. The Scripture makes clear that it will be done largely through our marriages.”

    Joining this bandwagon, Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine of FamilyLife Today, a national radio broadcast of Campus Crusade’s FamilyLife ministry, aired the tape of Dr. Mohler’s talk. Afterward, the hosts voiced their absolute agreement with Mohler’s message. Rainey added a personal anecdote about how excited he was when his sons popped the question to their respective wives, “because I knew life was about to begin in earnest.”

    … Their comments make me wonder how many actual Christian singles they interact with on a regular basis, or whether they’re basing their understanding of singles from viewing a few episodes of Friends.

    Most of the singles I know and hear from aren’t delaying marriage due to selfish motives.

    Rather most of them earnestly desire to be married, are surprised and/or frustrated that they aren’t yet, and are prayerfully trying to figure out how to get from here to there.

    … Mohler seems to assume that all still-single women are such because we chose to climb the corporate ladder first, and that all still-single men are such because they first chose to sow their wild oats.

    Continue reading

Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why

Your Preacher Sucks

Did you know that your preacher is not God?

Did you know that the New Testament says that Satan poses as an angel of light?

Did you know that the New Testament makes reference to wolves in sheeps’ clothing, that is, false teachers who infiltrate the pulpit and churches, for the express purpose of fleecing the flock, getting rich, or taking sexual advantage of the ladies, or for pushing their false doctrines? Yeah? You were aware of all that?

There are sure a lot of Christians on the internet who don’t act like they are aware of any of this.

Because as soon as anyone says anything critical about a preacher or that preacher’s theology, no matter how politely said criticism is stated, sooner or later, a follower of that preacher will show up on that forum, blog, or site to leave a message – varying from very nasty, downright hateful, to a more chiding tone of, “You’re being such a meanie, Pastor John Doe is such a gawdly man, how dare you criticize Pastor Doe! Who do you think you are?”

It makes me want to barf.

No man - NO MAN - is above criticism, and I don’t care if it’s a famous preacher or who it is.

By the way, this blog post also serves as as reminder about internet safety.

Continue reading

Radio Host Janet Mefferd Read My Previous Post about Marriage and Stuff, Yay!

Radio Host Janet Mefferd Read My Previous Post about Marriage and Stuff, Yay!

A couple of days ago I tweeted to Christian radio host Janet Mefferd in regards to her interview with the Focus on the Family talking head, about early marriage.

The guy on the show she was talking to, Stanton, denied that preachers are encouraging something called “early marriage,” but I tweeted to let her know that yes, some preachers are in fact pushing for early marriage.

I also explained to her that the early marriage issue fits in with the evangelical tendency to worship family and marriage.

Janet Mefferd has a national radio program. She frequently interviews well-known Christians, including preachers and book authors.

You can listen to her show (Link): here (Janet Mefferd show) (or by using the link on the far right, under the blog roll).

I also tweeted Mefferd a link to (Link): this blog page by me. I wrote that blog page pretty fast, and so I’m afraid it’s rambling.

She tweeted me back that she read it and agreed with my views about topics that were discussed on the page and agreed that a lot of Christianity has turned family into an idol.

I appreciate the fact she read my blog page (which was so very long), and that she took time to respond to me. (I thanked her in a response tweet.)

I hope that maybe in the future that Mrs. Mefferd might devote a few radio shows to this phenomenon – not just about early marriage, but about the plight of older, celibate singles – like ask author Julia Duin on for an interview, or other authors, such as Camerin Courtney, who have written about the stereotypes, tribulations, or neglect that older singles face in churches and Christian culture, and the backlash against virginity by evangelicals.

I think it was very kind of Mrs. Mefferd to take the time to read my post and reply to me personally – she must be a very busy person, getting millions of tweets per day, so I was not really expecting a reply, but I got one.

It’s also great that word is getting out about the weird, unbiblical views Christians have about marriage, singleness, dating, sex, etc.

Mefferd Guest Focus on the Family Spokesperson Stanton Incredulous that Preachers Push Kids To Marry Early

Mefferd Guest Incredulous that Preachers Push Kids To Marry Early

I will be tweeting a link to this to Janet Mefferd.

Mrs. Mefferd (if she is reading this at all!), I realize this post is way long.

However, I would appreciate it if you would read it and really take to heart and consider what it is saying, and maybe take the time to look over the links to other materials I’ve provided. The evangelical and Baptist and Reformed churches are alienating and hurting a lot of celibate, single adults.

And for anyone else reading, today, I am blogging about this:
(Link): (Janet Mefferd Show) Hour 2- Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family discusses divorce rates. AUDIO.

Today, at least 44% of the American adult population is single. This includes a big chunk of Christian women over 30, 40 who would like to marry, but marriage is not happening for them.

Evangelicals, however, continue to ignore these singles to harp on (nuclear) family, marriage, and babies.

And yes, Evangelicals are pushing for Early Marriage. They are not helping the over-30 singles, but ignoring them and advising 18 year olds to marry now.

I sent Janet Mefferd (Christian radio show host) an e-mail several months ago alerting her to some of the un-biblical, strange, and insulting views of adult, celibate, Christian singles that are held and taught by married Christians – even by famous Christians, such as Southern Baptist Al Mohler – but I got no reply from her.

I have no idea if Mrs. Mefferd read my e-mail or saw it. I used the “contact form” at her site to send her the message.

I don’t always agree with Mrs. Mefferd on all issues, but I do like her on a personal level, I sometimes feel a bit grouchy with her if I feel she’s falling into the “family idolatry” trap that is so pervasive among evangelicals and other Christians…
But I do appreciate that Mefferd thinks Christians should actually expect other self professing believers to walk the Christian walk.

Because when it comes to virginity and sexual purity – though I myself am an ACTUAL virgin past my 40s (since I have not married) – I am now seeing a Christian culture that runs from ‘Laissez-faire’ on sexual ethics to bashing and attacking the concept of virginity and adult virgins themselves. Here are just a link or two (more links at end of this post):

One of several reasons I am drifting towards agnosticism after having been a devout Christian since youth has to do with this very topic: Christians being hypocrites, especially on these sexual issues.

Here I stayed a virgin into adulthood, trying to stay true to the faith and the Bible’s teachings (that is, I am a LITERAL virgin, not one of those fornicators who calls herself a “born again” or “spiritual” or “secondary” virgin, puh-leaze).

And instead of getting acknowledged for remaining sexually pure into middle age (notice that mothers in churches get carnations, they get recognized, on Mother’s Day, etc, what do virgin, adult women get? Nothing, that’s what, no sermons, no flowers, nothing), nor do I get support (emotional, practical, or financial support) from Christians during my celibate, adult singleness.

I am getting blamed and bashed for being a virgin past 40, or totally ignored (links about this below).

False teachings about celibacy, adult singleness, and sex abound in Christendom these days, even among conservative evangelicals, but not many Christians care or even notice.

Even when I alert other Christians to this information, they do not seem to care.

Evangelical, Reformed, Fundamentalist, and Baptist Christians do NOT esteem virginity or celibacy for anyone who is over 25 years of age but actually attack both concepts. (Keep reading, I explain more below, with links to proof.)

In this audio (see link to audio below), where Janet Mefferd interviews Stanton of Focus on the Family, Stanton disputes some recent findings by some study about divorce rates being higher among Protestant Christians.

(I blogged about that study a few days ago, (Link): here).

In this interview with Mefferd, Stanton says the researchers concluded that one reason for higher divorce rates among Protestant Christians is that Preachers encourage young people to marry early (ie, very young).

Stanton laughed this claim off and said, “I have never heard such a thing, ha ha ha.”

(Link): (Janet Mefferd Show) Hour 2- Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family discusses divorce rates. AUDIO.

But, the claim is TRUE.

Just about a week ago, this young preacher named Deeter wrote a post encouraging people to marry young, and I wrote this rebuttal:

Yes, some preachers and branches of Christianity are most certainly advocating Early Marriage, to the point it has been editorialized about on “Christianity Today,” see:

Other Christians, some of whom are authors, have commented on the phenomenon of preachers and churches advocating Early Marriage.
Here are some examples (some of these pages are by me):

The reason some pastors are advocating Early Marriage is that they see high rates of fornication going on among self professing evangelical youth.

Evangelicals, Reformed, Baptists, and other sorts of Christians, assume if they can get a teen Christian to marry at age 21, that pre marital sex will not be an issue, and that the rates or pre-marital sex among youth can be lowered.

Continue reading

Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

I was watching a Christian TV show that said there is an upcoming Sex Summit planned.

I have found several links about the event (which I have put in the post much farther below).

I assume they mean Christians are going to gather at this thing to talk about how to combat porn and what not.

One wonders if all spokes persons at this shin dig will be married Christians who are having sex, or if they will actually come up with celibate adults who are over 30 to contribute to this thing, in any way?

I, a virgin who is over the age of 40, never married, don’t really appreciate being lectured to about sexual ethics and issues by a married guy who is banging his wife weekly and/or who is probably looking at porn (a lot of married preachers are porn addicts), or having affairs (another problem with a lot of married, Christian men, see this link for examples).

I am over 40 and have stayed a virgin this long without any support from Christians, preachers, churches, or Southern Baptists.

These Baptist jack holes are NOT sources of authority on sex or sexual purity, as they do NOT support Christians who are celibate and single over the age of 25 – 30, and so, they should shut up about these topics.

Until or unless a church or denomination is ready to offer regular and concrete, emotional, spiritual, and financial support to celibate adults who are over 30, they need to shut up about the evils of fornication and all these related topics – S.T.F.U.

Southern Baptists and many other denominations and churches do NOT support sexual purity or virginity, in that they do nothing to support celibate adults, those who are actually living celibate lifestyles.

If anything, we celibate adults get shamed by other Christians for being virgins, for NOT being married and for not procreating.

We older virgins are told by Southern Baptists and other Christians that we are not as mature as married parents, we are suspected of being homosexual, and receive all manner of other put downs and negative assumptions.

Mature celibates get lectured by Christians on their stupid blogs or pod casts that we are “prideful” about being virgins (when we are no such thing).

Southern Baptists, Reformed, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals ignore adult,celibate adults and at that to support marriage and married couples. They have turned marriage and having children into IDOLS.

You cannot be consistent and say on the one hand you think sex is for marriage only, but then turn around and tell fornicators that their sexual sin is no big deal, and that people who are over 30 and still virgins, are “prideful,” or are “fetishizing virginity.”

You can’t have it both ways, but that is exactly what Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians are doing on topics pertaining to sex.

Baptists and other conservative Christians say from one side of their mouth that you should stay a virgin (until you marry), but when you are still single and still a virgin at age 30 or older, they shame you and insult you for being a virgin.

Married couples, yes, even Christian ones, engage in sexual sin.

Will this Baptist-hosted sex summit be mentioning the staggering numbers of married Christian men who admit to being pornography addicts (see examples)?

Will the summit discuss married preachers who have affairs, fondle children, and who use prostitutes (see examples and see more examples)?

Here’s a link or two about the sex summit:

(Link): Southern Baptist Leaders to Host Sex Summit

I have not yet read that page.

I’m going to guess that either:

1. There will be lip service paid to virginity and sexual purity by the Baptists in these articles (but what goes un-said is that they only support virginity for people under the age of 25; they expect everyone over 25 to fornicate, so they tend to look the other way when adult singles fornicate);

or,

2. Somewhere, their mission statement will say they are trying to downplay the importance of virginity / sexual purity, so as not to cause offense to, or shamed feelings among, fornicators.

What a freaking joke.

Notice that, according to the reports below, the Southern Baptists will only be addressing “Teen sex.” There is no support or mention of adult celibates (i.e., post age 30 celibates / sexuality). None.

This only further proves my point that Christians only believe in virginity and sexual purity for people under the age of 20 / 25.

To any teens reading this, you might as well have sex prior to age 25, since once you get to age 25 and after, Baptists no longer care if you’re having sex, how often, and with whom (as long as it is hetero fornication).

If Baptists do address fornication, they are sure to reassure the adult (past age 25) fornicators that Jesus loves them anyhow, and they are not saved by their virginity (sexual sin is downplayed).

So really, with this Baptist, evangelical, fundamentalist, and Reformed attitude that sexual sin is no biggie past your mid 20s, I don’t see why it’s so problematic for the under mid 20s set, as in teenagers. (Barring the naive nature of teens, which makes them dupes and easy prey for sexual predators.)

Here are excerpts from the page:

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. January 27, 2014 (AP)

    Southern Baptist Convention leaders are hosting a summit in Nashville that will focus on sex.

    The topics will range from pornography, teen sex, homosexuality and how pastors can talk to their congregations about human sexuality.

    Russell Moore, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president for the Southern Baptist Convention, says the summit’s theme is a timely one.

    Panel topics include discussions on the gospel and homosexuality and the gospel and ministry in a sex-saturated world.

    The sessions will also focus on how the “gospel shapes a person’s sexual identity, redeems sexual desire and sets free people held captive by sin.”

    The summit will be held from April 21-23. The event’s main sessions will be streamed live on the Web for people who cannot attend.

Russell Moore does NOT support sexual purity or virginity, see this post:

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

Continue reading

Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

I don’t agree with homosexuality – I don’t regard it as moral or normal behavior – but, I find that many right wing Christians incorrectly equate the legalization of homosexual marriage, or homosexuality itself, to “an attack on family values” or “an attack on traditional families.”

The Bible, however, seems to define homosexuality, and other types of sexual sin, as being sins against God and one’s own body (ie, as in this verse directed at followers of Christ: (Link): 1 Corinthians 6:12-18) – and not as being against family or culture.

A night or two ago, the 2014 Grammys were televised. I did not watch it because awards shows are boring, but I did see a few articles about the show today. A mass hetero- and homo- sexual wedding ceremony was held on that program.

You can read more about it later, here:
(Link): Grammys 2014: Rush Limbaugh, conservative pundits angered by same-sex marriages during Macklemore & Ryan Lewis performance (off site link)

Remember, I wrote in a previous post how Christians misuse and misapply terms such as “family values”:
(Link): The Term “Family Values” And Its Use By Christians – Vis A Vis story: Grandma Gives Teen Granddaughter a Vibrator.

There is a conflation by evangelicals, Reformed, Baptists, and fundamentalists of the terms or concepts of “family values” and “biblical values.”

I posit that biblical values are not necessarily the same thing as family values.

Right wing, socially conservative Christians tend to measure lifestyle choices and behaviors not necessarily by what the Bible teaches, but what they assume it teaches, or by American cultural norms.

In other words, I find it suspect, troubling, and strange that while these sorts of Christians would no doubt consider themselves “sola scriptura,” that rather than appeal to Scripture to explain why they consider homosexuality or homosexual marriage wrong, they will usually appeal to language such as “family values” or “attacks on traditional families” or “attack on traditional marriage.”

Is homosexuality a sin against God, and does it go against what God has said of homosexuality in the Bible, and should Christians oppose it on those grounds, or should Christians really be running around on blogs and radio shows saying they object to homosexuality on the basis that it does not jibe with their view on what constitutes “family values” or “traditional families,” or that it makes for uncomfortable, prime-time television viewing?

Many right wing, socially conservative, evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, and Reformed Christians hold the American, 1950s nuclear family up as the criteria by which to judge changes in society – such as the gaining acceptance of homosexual marriage – rather than holding up the Bible (which purports to tell humanity what God thinks about various topics) as the point of reference.

I consider this tendency by Christians to use phrases such as “traditional family” and “family values” as another indication of how some Christians have turned family, parenting, pro-creating, and marriage into idols- and which the Bible forbids.

If you are going to protest homosexuality or homosexual marriage, and you are a Christian, I would hope you would use the Bible as your grounds for engagement, not “traditional families” rhetoric.

The Bible does not define “traditional family” as being one mom, one dad, and children.

The Bible does not define “traditional family” as being two married lesbians who are raising three kids, or as an uncle raising a nephew.

The Bible does not define a grandma and grandpa who have four grandchildren living with them as being a family, or what God considers the only acceptable expression of a family unit.

There are some cultures, such as in Latin America, where it is normal for three or more generations of flesh and blood relations to live under the same roof.

The Bible has nothing to say about the topic of what defines a family for all people of all cultures and time periods.

The patriarchs and other males in the Bible, the Abrahams, Noahs, Solomons, and King Davids, had three or more wives and ten or more children apiece. I don’t see many Christians, outside of Quiverfull or Reconstructionist- type kooks, who advocate that Christians today revert to having patriarchal family structures.

The Bible does seem to define or understand marriage – as God intended it to be – between one man and one woman, but that is the extent of it (see (Link): Matthew 19:1-9).

The Scriptures do not go on and limit the term or concept of “family” to mean only or even primarily, a man, woman, with children, it only says that a marriage is tantamount to one man married to one woman.

What the Bible does discuss is that God considers sex outside of marriage as being sinful, but it nowhere dictates what God considers an acceptable configuration of adults and children as being a “family.”

The Bible warns against believers placing family above God and above other Christians (see the words of Jesus in (Link): Matthew 10: 34 – 37 or (Link): Matthew 12:46-50).

If you are a Christian, your priority in life is not the “traditional family.”

Of course, if you are a Christian, you should provide for your family members (1 Timothy 5:8), but if one of your main motivators in life is defending what you consider “traditional families” from societal changes or homosexual lobbies or homosexual special interest groups, that may be an indication that you have turned the “traditional family” into an idol.

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross to defend “traditional families,” “family values” or “traditional marriage.”

The Apostle Paul did not instruct the new converts in pagan Greek cities he ministered to to rise up and challenge the ungodly climate of their host cities, but to go about their lives quietly, helping each other, and spreading the Gospel message.

Christians such as actor Kirk Cameron, who bloviate about “family” constantly, keep forgetting that there are Christians who are over the age of 30 and older, who have never married, who have no living relatives left to turn to, or they are widowed and childless; they don’t have a “traditional family” to provide them with emotional support or financial help.

Christians constantly complaining that “traditional families” are being attacked by liberals, feminists, or homosexuals keep maintaining this illusion, which is not biblical, that all Christians have a spouse and children to lean on, or that they should.

The Bible upholds being single or childless by choice – or circumstance – as being acceptable to God; God does not “look down his nose” at singles or the childless and deem them “less Christian” or less worthy of help, time, and financial support.

Why do I never see the Kirk Camerons, the evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Reformed Christians, discuss how, say, homosexual marriage may negatively be impacting “Singles Values,” the un-married Christian celibates?

I’ve seen only a very small number of Christian writers discuss how the cultural acceptance of homosexuality has influenced Christian, adult singles, such as:

And I’ve weighed in the topic in blog posts such as:

Why do Cameron and his ilk only express concern over how homosexuality, and other phenomenon, may be impacting “families” and “marriages?” Does he and those like him not care how cultural trends shape or influence un-married Christians over the age of 30?

An atheist blogger wrote a post about former atheist now turned Christian, actor Kirk Cameron, and his comments about the 2014 Grammys:
(Link): Kirk Cameron: The Grammys Were An ‘Assault on the Traditional Family’… Now Buy My Movie!

Excerpt:

    January 27, 2014 By Hemant Mehta

    Kirk Cameron, Protector of the Family, Defender of the Faith, and Speaker of the Bullshit, took to Facebook today to announce that the mass-wedding at last night’s Grammy Awards during Macklemore and Ryan Lewis‘ performance of the pro-LGBT song “Same Love” was an “all out assault on the traditional family.”

Most everyone – the atheists, homosexual marriage supporters, and the emergent, liberal, ex Christians, are hopping angry over Cameron’s disapproval of homosexual marriage, but what escapes the attention of all these critics is Cameron’s improper, unbiblical fixation on elevating marriage and family to a sphere that even the Bible does not do.

On (Link): that page, the blogger provides a screen capture of Cameron’s Facebook page comments.

What Cameron said in part was:

    How did you like the Grammy’s all out assault on the traditional family last night?

    As a husband and a father, I am proud to announce the release of my new family movie, MERCY RULE. Last night, the lines were drawn thick and dark.

    Now more than ever, we must work together to create the world we want for our children.

    [omit rest of his comment]

While all the atheists and others are spazzing out over Cameron not being cool with homosexual marriage, I instead note his fixation on flesh and blood family.

Cameron did not simply say, “As a Christian, I am…”

No.

He prefaced one of his comments by saying, “As a husband and a father, I am….”

Why did Cameron find it relevant to mention that he is a “husband and father” when introducing his movie?

Why does he seemingly feel that one has to be a parent and spouse to support, believe in, or live by, biblical values?

Look at this other line by Cameron:

    Now more than ever, we must work together to create the world we want for our children.

I am over 40 years of age, have never married, and have never had any children. I am very put off that so many Christians make these assumptions that any and all other Christians are also married with children.

There seems to me to be something wrong with a Christian apologetic mindset that predicates and presupposes flesh- and- blood family so much and so often.

When the Apostle Paul – who never married or had children – talked to un-believers, he said that he preached “Christ and Him crucified,” and not, “My God, man, think of your children and mine! What about family values?”

When Paul and other New Testament writers talked about sexual sin, they did not appeal to “family values.”

The biblical writers instead got into other arguments, about God’s intention for creating sex, and how, who, and when, and if, people should have sex, and so forth.

No where did Paul or the other biblical writers say,
“Do not have pre-marital sex, commit adultery, or homosexual acts, because FAMILY VALUES!!!1111!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!111!!!!11!!”

Are there consequences for a society, for the 1950s nuclear family model, and to people’s emotional and physical health, in regards to sexual behavior and rampant sexual sin across culture and in popular entertainment?

Yes, there can be, and there has been, I suppose.

But the Bible does not use “family values,” “our children’s future,” or “traditional family” as supporting arguments to convince people to drop sexual sin.

I don’t know if I am totally against the use of phrases such as “family values” or “traditional families” (and similar ones) per se (you may find me slipping and using them myself from time to time so ingrained are they in my Baptist and evangelical upbringing), but I am concerned that idolization of marriage and family by evangelical Christianity runs so deep that these phrases, or the very things themselves, are being held up as the norm, the standard, or measuring rod for culture and morals, rather than the God and Bible they claim to believe in.

January 30, 2014 update:

Huffington Post (a left wing site) published this:
(Link): Kirk Cameron Thinks Grammys’ Gay Marriages Were An ‘Assault On The Traditional Family’

Excerpt:

    The post [by Cameron] was, undoubtedly, a means of self-promotion for the 43-year-old’s newest flick, “Mercy Rule,” which co-stars his wife and is apparently about “family, faith and baseball.” Self-promotion drenched in homophobia, that is.

Other media mentioned Cameron’s Facebook comments, such as:

(Link): Kirk Cameron blasts Grammy Awards’ mass wedding

(Link): Kirk Cameron slams gay marriage after Grammys

(Link): Kirk Cameron Calls Grammys Gay Weddings an “Assault on the Traditional Family”

(Link): Kirk Cameron Bashes Grammys’ Gay Marriages, Uses Homophobia To Promote New Film

Cameron’s problem is not ‘homophobia’ – it’s family idolatry.
—————————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): If Family is Central, Christ is Not

IIRC, Kirk Cameron has rubbed shoulders with the kooks of the patriarchy movement; perhaps he is not aware of some of their unbiblical, extreme views about marriage, being childless, single, etc:
(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

44% of the U.S., adult population is now single – and many are childless (including some married couples) – and churches are not ministering to these groups (as they should be doing), but continue to bash them for being single and childless
(some Christian single women wanted to marry, but there were no Christian men their age for them to marry):
(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Ageism in the Church – The Insufferable, Obnoxious Fixation on the Under-25s Demographic

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy

(Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): Famous Preacher Claims Obama is Paving Way For Anti Christ Vis A Vis Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

(Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors (Divorce Rates Higher Among Conservative Protestant Christians)

(Link): The Way We Never Were (book – Family Idol)

(Link): Idolizing Family by David McCrory / Familial Idolization by Christians

(Link): Mormons and Christians Make Family, Marriage, Having Children Into Idols

(Link): Homosexual Father Arrested for Raping His Nine Year Old Son, Filming it For Perverted Friends, Lets Friend Rape His Kid, Resulting in Kid Getting STD – Parenthood Does Not Make People More Godly or Mature

(Link): Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Homophobe (editorial by a homosexual man)

(Link): Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

(Link): Do Married Couples Slight Their Family Members as Well as Their Friends? / “Greedy Marriages”

(Link): Why Do Christians Ask if Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation – Why Not Explain that Celibacy is an Option?

(Link): Married Youth Pastor Father of Four Caught Raping and Molesting Several Little Boys claims the molesting kept the boys sexually pure and cures them of homosexuality

(Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): Stigmas and Stereotypes of Single Unmarried Men Over 25 or 30 Years of Age – They’re Supposedly All Homosexual or Pedophiles

Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Rachel Held Evans recently wrote this post:
(Link): The Bible was ‘Clear’

Her position is that the Bible is not always clear as Christians think or say or believe it to be.

Sometimes I agree with Mrs. Evans, sometimes I don’t. This is one of those “in between” times where I am sympathetic to her overall point but feel she’s in danger of tipping over, too.

Let me start with giving you an excerpt from her post that she published last night or today, so you can see what her motives are:

    In 1982:
    “The Bible clearly teaches, starting in the tenth chapter of Genesis and going all the way through, that God has put differences among people on the earth to keep the earth divided.” – Bob Jones III, defending Bob Jones University’s policy banning interracial dating/marriage. The policy was changed in 2000.

Mrs. Evans goes on to list several more examples, where some Christian or another from 100 or more years ago wrote a statement that most Christians today would likely agree is wrong, scientifically incorrect, or racist, or what have you, a comment that said Christian insisted the Bible was “clear on.”

As someone who was raised in a home and church that taught gender complementarianism, and I used to be gender complmenetarian myself but am no longer one, I can see how, yes, sometimes a person can believe the Bible is very clear on a topic, even though there may be other Bible verses or passages that negate or contradict one’s views.

For example, a lot of Christian gender complmentarians only pay attention to two or three verses in the New Testament – the ones that talk about a woman being silent in church, the one where Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach, and so on – and not only do gender complementarians ignore key words within such favored verses, but they have a nasty tendency to ignore the examples that contradict their views – such as the existence of Junia the female apostle in the New Testament; Deborah, who was a leader over the nation Israel; and that Paul elsewhere says that women may prophesy – which requires women to open their mouth and speak, and not remain silent in church, or anywhere else.

Your average gender complementarian, however, will bang a fist on a desk and insist vehemently that the Bible is abundantly clear that no woman may ever teach, lead, or be a preacher or apostle, despite the fact the Bible contains examples of women doing those very things, and with God’s approval.

(For more on those particular gender complementarian issues, please see:
(Link): LOST IN TRANSLATION Part 2 – A Look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (off site link; hosted on Junia Project)
(Link): Why I’m an Egalitarian (off site link) )

Contrary to what gender complementarians think, the Bible is not clear or cut- and- dried, once- for- all about whether women can and should be preachers and so on.

I think Christians such as Evans need to be equally aware that it can be problematic and sloppy, however, to make the Bible out to be completely fuzzy and vague on any and all topics, as though the entirety of the Bible is up for grabs and can be defined in any old way.

That the Bible can be hard to understand on some points is true does not mean that one cannot figure out what God thinks or believes about other topics.

When people approach the Bible with a pet doctrine in mind, or with an agenda, they will not take the biblical text for what it really says, but attempt to find “loop holes” that negate the verses they do not like, or to give alternate interpretations that fit their pre-made conclusions of what they WISH the text said.

Continue reading

James Dobson’s Family Talk Begs For Donations

James Dobson’s Family Talk Begs For Donations

You can visit the barfy “Family Talk” group here (on Facebook). Why is it barfy?

If you are single, especially a never married, childless adult over the age of 30, the posts and photos on the page will make you hurl.

The top entry on the page has a graphic reading, “I love my spouse in every situation!” (You can view that post (Link): here.)

I will give the folks at Dobson’s “Family Talk” props for (Link): the post with content by pastor Greg Laurie on how to handle the death of a loved one, because death is something that affects EVERYONE, regardless or marital status.

Farther down the page, though, is a post with a photo of a laughing couple with text reading: “When two people Love each other deeply…” (you can view that post (Link): here). Clearly, given the photo and such, it is referring to marital / romantic love, not the love that two friends can have for one another. Christian culture never acknowledges or promotes Friendship Love.

It remains obsessed with pushing a very narrow view of love: love for God, love for spouse, and sometimes, love for one’s own off spring. What of people who have never married or who are childless? These sorts of messages are hurtful or irrelevant.

Anyway, Dobson recently sent out a letter begging donors for more money. You can see it here:

(Link): Dec 2013 Letter from Dr James Dobson of Family Talk

The relevant portion of the guy’s letter, and the parts I found interesting (as in nauseatingly obsessed with “marriage and family”):

    Family Talk is not only attempting to strengthen marriage, parenting and the family; we are also working tirelessly to defend righteousness in the culture.

    For example, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, (ADF), we will be bringing a lawsuit this month against HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to stop her Department from assaulting the Sanctity of Human Life.

    As I hope you know, the Obama Administration has mandated and intends to require that pro-life organizations, such as ours, and our healthcare insurers or administrators provide abortion-inducing drugs and devices to our employees, and thereby violate our deeply held convictions.

    Family Talk has not yielded to those demands…

    I must close by telling you that our contributions during the summer and fall of 2013 have been far below our needs. It isn’t difficult to figure out where that leads.

    It is likely that this shortfall in income has been caused in part by economic uncertainty and the utter foolishness of Obamacare. But if you can help us here at the end of the year, it would be greatly appreciated.

    Will you prayerfully consider a gift this month to help us reach and impact millions of families? In the process, it is our desire to assist you in building your family legacy.

Now, some liberal Christians, or ex-Christians and atheists and agnostics, who I saw discussing this letter, on another website or two, had a fit over Dobson’s comments about Obamacare, or they laughed about it. They were offended or put off by the anti Obamacare commentary.

I do not care about that; I’m not an Obama supporter and resent the fact I will be forced, by the Obama admin, to buy something I don’t want and do not need.

Dobson can rag on Obamacare all he likes, and it doesn’t bother me at all.

((Link, off site): Owning Up to the Obamacare Lies / Liberals are finally admitting, quietly, that conservative critiques were right all along.)

So the liberal Christians, atheists, and ex-Christians can go suck a lemon on that score.

(You know, just because you were hurt or offended by a “conservative” Church at some point, or by conservative theology, does not mean you have to turn a 180 and become a liberal or an Obama-supporting Democrat, or toss out a literalist understanding of the Bible, or mock those who still adhere to literalism.)

What I find repellent are these “pro family groups” asking people for money. These idiots do little to nothing to promote adult singles, or anyone who does not fit into the very narrow paradigm of “married with children.”

They feed into the evangelical, Reformed, Fundamentalist, and Baptist tendency to worship marriage and procreation (having children).

This also reminds me of the news story several months ago where Focus on the Family was not only firing employees due to budget shortfalls, but also begging donors for five million dollars to make a “pro family” film. The world does not need a “pro family” film, what a waste of five million dollars.
—————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): Focus on the Family having financial problems – aw, too bad (not!)

(Link): Good Grief! Five Million Dollar Family Idoltary on Display: Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about what you REALLY mean

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): Focus on the Family advice columnist perpetuates stereotypes about single women

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): Focusing on the Family Causes Church Decline

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Family Research Center (Christian group) thinks people (including the Nuclear Family) should be cut off food stamps

Why I Post Anonymously ( Part 2 – the John Hugh Morgan Fiasco )

Why I Post Anonymously (Part 2 – the John Hugh Morgan Fiasco)

The Year Long Soap Opera of Being Pressured and Harassed Into Giving My Real Name

I wold advise you to read this whole post to get the full picture, but there is a kind of TL;DR thing at the bottom.

Here is part 1:
(Link): Why I Post Anonymously (Part 1)

I originally had much of the following content in ‘Part 1,’ but it was getting out of hand, making that post too long, and going off on a tangent, so here is that material in its own post.

What I will do is give some history and background first.

About a year or two ago, I got a new blog visitor, a guy who posts under the name John Hugh Morgan (aka johnhughmorgan3 ~ Twitter handle = @JohnMor13413450. He has a blog on Word Press, (Link): Christian Virtue in the 21st Century).

January 4, 2014 update:

Morgan has now set his “Christian Virtue in the 21st Century Blog” to private.

One must have his permission to view his blog.

However, you can still view and read the blog via Google Cache. For example:
A copy of this “Maidens” post that I make a reference to in this post can be viewed
(Link): here – cached version of “Maiden” post

I don’t know if Morgan did this today or yesterday, but one thing is certain: he continues to visit this blog and reads it. :lol:

The dude scolds me about not posting under my real name, in that he apparently feels people should post under their real names to be considered “credible” (and transparent and the like), but then goes and sets his whole blog to private.

What is it this guy is trying to hide? I thought the whole purpose of blogging under one’s real name (according to him) was to be open and viewed as trustworthy?

I may be blogging under a “pen name” here, but my blog is open and visible to anyone who drops by.

It’s quite the double standard to lecture someone for not blogging under their real name, implying they are untrustworthy, deceptive or shady, but then pretty much acts shady and dishonest, or suspicious and odd, while blogging under their real name. :lol:

—-Update Jan. 21, 2014.—-

Morgan has since set his blog back to public:
(Link): Christian Virtue in the 21st Century

Morgan seems to mirror the stuff I discuss on my blog, after I blog about it first.

I do believe I was blogging about feminist “slut shaming” rhetoric and its effect on views of virginity and celibacy, and how such views have seeped into Christian culture, before he was, but he feels fine borrowing that topic to use at his own blog, with no hat tip to this blog.

How someone can criticize me for not blogging under my real name but feel just spiffy fine about using ideas I blog on first is beyond me.

I have no idea how long his blog will remain publicly visible. Probably until he sees I can see it again, in which case it might go back to hidden mode for a few days again. :lol:

–end of Jan 21 update—

In his “Maidens” post (view post), Morgan states:

    In order to affirm something, you must be willing to defend it.

    At one time in history, knights defended maidens at all costs. It was known as chivalry.

    So every chance we get, let’s show the world what it is missing.

    Show men with dignity and self control that they are worth more than a distrustful glance, an anonymous email, or adolescent games.

    There really is no gray area here. You either build a guy up to what he can be or you tear him down to what he used to be. It’s your choice.

Several points:

1. Vis a vis the “chivalry” type comments, of knights defending women.

Women should defend themselves. Women expecting or hoping for other people to defend them, especially men, is a form of codependency.

When I was cyber stalked previously, I had no man to defend me. I had to defend myself.

Brow-beating or shaming a woman for caring about her personal safety as expressed by her using a pen name when writing sensitive, personal information, as I do on this blog, is bullying.

It is not ‘chivalry.’ It is quite the opposite of “chivalry.”

2. Regarding the “anonymous e mail” comment.

I’m not sure if that is a veiled reference to me or not; if it is:
Morgan contacted me here. He sent me e-mails. I did not contact him first. I did not e-mail him. He initiated contact with me.

3. Re: ‘adolescent games’ phrase.

That would be him, there again, who is being adolescent.

A mature man stops at a woman’s first or second “no” when asking her for something and does not try to shame her or harass her out of her “no.”

But it goes beyond “adolescent games” to keep harassing a woman online who has made it more than clear on one occasion she does not want you bothering her for her real name.

Again, this guy does not understand or appreciate how scary it is for women on line, or how dangerous it can be, when we get death threats or rape threats from men we do not know, and it’s made ten times more frightening if the man in question knows where we live and what our real name is.

4. Re: ‘Building a guy up’.
Sorry, no. A man’s behavior or emotional state is not a woman’s responsibility.

By the same token, a man’s sexual actions and sexual thought life is not a woman’s responsibility, either, so it is in error (as many Christian men do) to tell women to “dress modestly.”

That view is identical to what some branches of Islam teach, by the way, and which is why some practitioners of Islam force women to dress in head to toe outfits called burkas.

Muslims hold females responsible for male behavior and for male sexual sin.

If you find yourself parroting Islamic views, or agreeing with them, and yet claim to be a Christian, you need to re-examine your “Christian” beliefs.

5. Regarding Morgan’s comment:
“In order to affirm something, you must be willing to defend it.”

Er, yeah, which is what I was doing on this blog for two or more years, but got beaten up for it merely for not providing all the world with my real name.

A person can defend a belief under a “pen name.” Using one’s real name is not necessary.

And as if I want a bunch of horny, mal-adjusted sexual sickos e-mailing me about sex. No thank you.

And trust me, if you are a woman and you post under your real name (and with a photo) you WILL get sleaze-oids responding to you with sick, perverted comments and requests, especially if you mention anything about your personal sex life or history, as I do on this blog.

Morgan does not have to live with a fear of, or possibility of rape, because he is a man and not a woman (assuming he is in fact telling the truth about himself and posting his true name).

Morgan keeps wanting to portray the situation of posting about sexually related stuff under one’s real name as only slightly risky and no big deal… but again, he is not a female. He doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to.

(PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG)

I shifted views on pre-marital sex since I first began this blog a few years ago.

I no longer defend the concept of staying a virgin until marriage per se, only that I see a lot of Christians who profess to believe in it do not really practice it or believe it, and some of them, like hypocrites, even attack the very teaching.

I’m now more speaking out against the Christian hypocrisy and idiocy of sexual teachings I see, more so than defending celibacy or virginity.

end Jan 4, 2014 update

Morgan would occasionally leave comments under some of my posts. Not a problem. He was polite, did not make any trouble at that point.

But at some point early on, Morgan began pressuring me A LOT to give him my real name, to friend him on Facebook, etc.

I politely explained that, no, I did not wish to give him my real name or friend him on social media.

Morgan backed off after a little while, so I thought the matter was dropped.

Boy, was I wrong! Morgan began pressuring me again after some time (days or weeks, I can’t recall) once more for my real name and other personal identification. I again declined.

It seems to me we danced this dance several times within the space of weeks or months, and I had to keep telling him NO.

At one point back then, he apologized. Things calmed down for a while, I considered the matter over and done.

Morgan claimed early on that his pressuring me over me giving him my real name was due to some sort of mental health issue he suffers from, if I remember rightly.

I think at one point Morgan did not drop by my blog for a few weeks, so I figured he was gone for good, but no, he started leaving the occasional post again.

I was on edge thinking, “Oh no, it’s that guy who hounds me over wanting my real name. Geeze, I hope he does not bring THAT up again.”

But, he did not hound me at that time for my name or anything. So I thought it was a done deal.

Wrong again. He began hassling me again to reveal my real name.

It’s quite common on the internet for people to use screen names. I don’t think he understands that or appreciates it.

Anyway, I called Morgan out on it once more, and I think he told me back then he was sorry, that he ‘forgot’ that he had previously asked me for my real name.

A few months went by without incident. He was just a visitor who would drop in, leave a few posts, and go.

Sometime around August, September, or October 2013, I decided to make a Twitter account for this blog.

A few weeks after I was using that Twitter account to tweet links to some of my blog posts about singleness, Morgan started sending me tweets.

Morgan was again hounding me to give him my real name, but this time, he was doing so on Twitter.

Lord almighty, what is the obsession with getting my real name?

I am no less ‘credible’ for using a pseudonym.

My posts are no less true because I am not posting under my real name of “Mary Smith, located at 123 Elm Street, Any City, USA.”

(Here is where I pick up with the comments that were originally in Part 1 of “Why I Post Anonymously” with a little bit of editing so that it flows better.)

A (now former) regular reader of this blog ( johnhughmorgan3 ~ Twitter handle = @JohnMor13413450 ) suggested recently on Twitter that my not posting under my real name damages my credibility. I don’t see how.

    Edit.January 2, 2014 update:

    This individual, ( johnhughmorgan3 ), has since, as of late Jan. 1, 2014, or early Jan. 2, 2014, deleted all tweets he made to me on my Twitter account from his Twitter account (the ones where he was again bugging me to give him my real name, etc). :lol:

    Those Tweets are no longer appearing in my Twitter “contact” area, which notifies you of replies or comments you receive.

    However, my replies to him remain on Twitter. I was not talking to myself.

    I sent him about 4 or 5 tweets, in reply to his tweets to me, where I made it clear AGAIN that I would not be giving him my real name, after he once more bugged me about about stating my real name.

    Then I logged out after posting a few links to news stories about singles.

    When I logged back in to Twitter a day or so later, I checked my “contact” area on Twitter.

    Even after I had logged off, in the time since then, he had sent me several tweets, again harping on me about me remaining anonymous.

    In one tweet, Morgan claimed he knew of people who would want to post at my blog here, if only I would state my real name. I ignored that tweet and the others. I did not reply to those.

    As far as the first batch of tweets are concerned, the ones I did reply to-

    Here is one Tweet I sent him, after he began badgering me to reveal my real name AGAIN:

    (Link): My Tweet Reply

    That Tweet to him reads:

    @JohnMor13413450
    Why would my being anon damage my “credibility?” I useMyBlog2 rant so I guess it doesn’tBug me if ppl dn’t find me credible

————————————-
But some time last night or today (January 2, 2014), the dude has deleted any tweets he sent me.

Why? He claims to be a Christian guy.

What is he trying to hide? I thought Christians were supposed to be honest, upfront, and transparent, etc.

It looks like a person posting under his real name (or what he claims to be his real name) does not necessarily make him any more upstanding, “credible,” and honest than a person who uses a screen name to blog.

I had a hunch last night that he would delete all his Tweets to me. I had him pegged for that kind of person. I find it odd, though.

So there you have it.

- Dude harasses me for my real name for over a year (though he took a break from this behavior mid year for a few months),

- then sends me an e-mail or two late Nov. 2013 saying he’s fine with me staying anonymous, then

-stalks me over on Twitter in December 2013, once again hassling me and pressuring me for my real name, getting upset when I once more decline to reveal my true identity;

- then has a melt down / tantrum (Jan 1 or 2, 2014) and deletes all his tracks (ie, previous Tweets to me) and demanding I make more changes to my blog.

And this is why I blog anonymously, folks.

Goodness only knows what this sort of person would do if he had my real name.

(The last stalker I had DID have my real name, and the weirdo would harass me at my job, in addition to my private life.)

— Edit 2, January 2, 2014 —
DAMAGE CONTROL

I just visited the dude’s blog page recently (hosted on johnhughmorgan3.wordpress.com), and the blog has the post stamped as Dec 31, 2013:

(Link): Maidens Waiting For Marriage
(* A copy of this “Maidens” post can be viewed (Link): here)

You know WHY he made that post and why he chose that day to post it?
Look at the timing: it is stamped December 31, 2013.

Morgan made that post when he did because of his recent negative interactions with me from November and December 2013, where he was once more hounding me to give him my personal information and was doing so on my blog and on Twitter. He also sent me some e-mails in Nov. 2013.

This guy, Morgan, who pestered me for about over a year (via my blog, e- mail, and Twitter) for me to give my real name goes on and on in that post ((Link): Maidens Waiting For Marriage) about how much he admires women for posting under their real names “publicly.”

I have no idea why women writing about their experiences under “pen names” rather than their real names “publicly” magically do not count for anything.

Morgan also goes on and on (in his “Maidens” post) about how he totally understands about female concerns for online safety – NO, NO, HE REALLY DOES NOT; read this entire post for an explanation of why (as well as (Link): Part 1).

Also observe my comments above how this Morgan guy deleted previous tweets he sent me, tweets where-in he was once more shaming me and hounding me for not giving my real name to him.

Why would he do that unless he feels he has something to hide?

Morgan was, I can only assume, deleting those tweets, probably so he can claim I’m making the whole thing up, or how he really is Mr. Trustworthy, or can appear to be so to other ladies online.

Men simply do NOT face the same kind of, and amount of, danger online, or in real life, that women do (see links farther below for more on that).

Continue reading

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll

Hats off to Stephanie Drury who must have a stomach made of iron. I am guessing she visits the Mars Hill (Driscoll’s) blog daily? I don’t have the fortitude to do that.

Anyway, I found this link via Drury’s Facebook group, Stuff Christian Culture Likes (link)

Here is the link to Driscoll’s page, which I will dissect momentarily:
(Link): Two Mistakes Singles Make

Driscoll actually lists, under point 1,
MISTAKE #1: IDOLIZE MARRIAGE

Remember, Driscoll is directing this advice at the UN-married.

And I say: No, no, no (I sound like Amy Winehouse there, sorry).

It’s not singles who idolize marriage, it’s Christian culture, primarily the Christians who are already married, such as Driscoll himself.

Driscoll actually wrote an editorial idolizing parenthood a few weeks ago, called “Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women.” You can read it here:
(Link): Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women, by Driscoll.
Driscoll’s editorial was similar to the one I wrote about here, one by Hemingway:
(Link): Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical.

Both pieces, the one by Driscoll, and the one by Hemingway, idolize pro-creation and leave no room for the New Testament’s position that lifelong childless-ness and singlehood are fine with God.

It’s hypocritical for Driscoll to shame Christian singles who either desire marriage and parenting for themselves, or who choose to forgo one or both, when he is in fact upholding marriage and parenting in editorials, blogs, and sermons as being laudable goals all should aspire to, especially women.

Not only do married Christians idealize and idolize marriage and parenting, and hold both up as benchmarks a Christian needs to prove success in life, but if a childless or unmarried Christian actively pursues both or either, they will be guilted and shamed for it by these marriage- and parenting- idolizing married Christians, even as Driscoll did in (Link): his previous posts about singles.

If you, a single, admit to wanting marriage, or ask for prayer from another believer that God send you a spouse, or you admit to using a dating site to try to find a marital partner, these pro-marriage married Christians will accuse you of lacking faith, worshipping marriage, trying to fill Jesus’ place with a spouse ((Link): see Driscoll again), not being content in your singleness, and all manner of other negative accusations.

Marriage does not happen magically, folks.

If you were not fortunate enough to meet your sweetie while in college and find yourself still single at age 30 or older, you have no choice but to actively pursue a mate via bars, night clubs, dating sites, and so forth.

From the time I was a pre-teen up until my mid or late 30s, I sincerely believed the Christian propaganda that if only I prayed for a spouse, stayed sexually pure, put God first in my life, trusted God, etc, that God would send me a spouse.

And yet, I find myself still not-married at age 40+.

Obviously, being passive about getting a husband (ie, using prayer, faith, etc) does not work.

(I am not saying that being active is a guarantee, either: sadly, even though some people chase after a spouse and join many dating sites, they sill remain single.
But in my view, your chances of getting married are bound to increase if you do go out and look, and not simply sit about praying and waiting.)

In his introduction, Driscoll gets it wrong:

    For the first time in American history, the majority of adults are single rather than married. Nine out of ten people eventually marry. The average man is about 30 years old for his first marriage, and the average woman is in her late 20s for her first marriage. This is nearly a decade later than was the case 60 years ago, which has contributed to such things as fornication and cohabitation.

Later age of marriage does not necessarily increase, or contribute to, fornication. I’m in my 40s and still a virgin, hello.

It’s both a Christian and Non Christian myth that no human being can go without sex past one’s early or mid twenties, so to stave off fornication, it is assumed one must marry by age 18 or 21.

By the way: I may be a virgin at age 40+, but I have a normal libido.

It’s another false assumption by married Christians and married Non Christians that a 40 year old virgin must:
1. have a medical problem leading to low libido
2. be fat and ugly (not true, I was engaged and have been “hit on’ by both Christian and Non-Christian men)

One reason of several I am still a virgin in my 40s is due to SELF CONTROL and CHOICE.

God did not magically “gift” me or “call me to” virginity, celibacy, or singleness.

Truths:
1a. People CAN CONTROL THEIR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
1b. Just because you get horny does NOT mean you HAVE TO HAVE SEX.

These (points 1a and 1b) are points that continue to sail over the heads of the Mark Driscolls of the world, due in part to secular influences in their thinking and a misunderstanding of the Bible’s teachings on celibacy, singlehood, and sex.

Also, marriage does not preclude or prevent sexual sin:
I have many, many blog posts on my blog here where I have linked to many news stories of MARRIED CHRISTIANS, some of whom are preachers, who have been caught, or arrested for, among other things, rape, pornography, spousal abuse, drug abuse, running prostitution rings, or for raping children.

It is simply naive or false to depict singleness as being a position where in one is more apt to commit sexual sin, when there are so many married couples who are having affairs, using porn, visiting prostitutes, or molesting children.

I could be wrong, but since Driscoll cites the information about age of first marriage being late twenties for most people these days, as opposed to a few decades ago, when many people got married early/ mid 20s, that he seems to be an advocate for “early marriage.” I have links below refuting the “early marriage” view that so many Christians are currently advocating.

Driscoll’s point two is MISTAKE #2: DEMONIZE MARRIAGE, where Driscoll writes,

    Your greatest joy is being alone. You like your freedom and don’t want anyone else to encroach upon your life because you’d be forced to consider them, accommodate them, or serve them.

This view is not biblical, so I have no idea why he’s putting contentment with being alone down, as though it is a negative thing.

The Bible does not command all to marry but rather presents life time singleness as being perfectly acceptable to God.

The Bible does not condemn preferring solitude, introversion, or singleness to being married or wanting companionship.

I’d also have to point out to this guy that as my dream of marriage fades, I’ve had no choice but to learn to accept my singleness. I’ve grown to enjoy my time alone (it also doesn’t hurt that I am naturally an introvert and prefer being alone, yay me).

Would this Driscoll guy rather I cry into my pillow nightly over being single, or just enjoy living my life as-is?

Driscoll just said in his (Link): previous post about single women that single females should not put their lives on hold and mope about over not being married.

Now, however, Driscoll seems to be saying if you have mostly made peace with your alone-ness, that is wrong too.

Well, FFS, which is it?

Does Driscoll want singles mooning, moping away, and pining for marriage, or coming to terms with being mostly okay with singlehood?

That’s one thing I hate about these articles by Christians about singles: they are chock full of double standards and contradictions, and this is but one:
Married Christians want you to be happy being single but not TOO happy.

You, as an adult single, according to married Christians, are supposed to find just the right balance of hankering for marriage, but not be so okay with being single that you’re not spazzing out and worrying over being single.

Married Christians claim they want you to be “content” with your singleness, yet, if you truly are content with it (at least part of the time, or most of the time), they disapprove of your contentment.

It seems to piss off some married Christians that you, the single, feel fine with being single, if not all the time, at least most of the time. Some married Christians want you, the single, to pine and hanker for marriage, at least a little bit, and if you do not, they assume you are selfish or unChristian in some capacity.

Continue reading

Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of Hetero Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of HETERO Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

Duck Dynasty is not a show I watch. I’ve only seen a few moments of it while channel surfing. It’s a reality show on cable channel A&E.

One of the show’s members, a Phil Robertson, got into hot water a few days ago when comments he made about sin in an interview for a magazine were published on the internet.

Here are some of Robertson’s quotes (Link): Source: LA TIMES

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary.

    “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers— they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

    He also muses rather colorfully about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina —as a man— would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Despite the fact the man named numerous sins, including sexual sins committed by HETERO-sexuals, as well as idolatry, greed, and swindling, most people have for some odd reason, decided to get selectively outraged primarily over his views about HOMOsexuality (a lesser number are upset over his comments about race relations, which I won’t be discussing).

Nobody seems to care that Robertson called out HETERO fornication or HETERO adultery as being sins. They’re only flipping out over his mention of homosexuality. I think that speaks volumes more about people making the criticisms and the overall culture than it does Robertson himself or his views.

I wonder if acceptance of hetero sexual sins has become so ingrained in our nation, that is why people can’t be bothered to get worked up over Robertson’s saying the Bible condemns hetero sins of the sexual variety?

Why do people only go up in arms over homosexuality being referred to as a sin, but nobody gets angry or offended over him mentioning that lying, greed, and idolatry, or hetero affairs are wrong?

It’s also interesting that homosexuals, and their hetero supporters, are choosing to perceive his comments as him equating homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism.

I am a HETERO myself, but despite the fact Robertson named greed, idolatry and bestiality along with HETERO sexual sins does not mean I choose to interpret that as meaning he was saying that all hetero sexuals have sex with animals, are greedy, or are idolaters.

Why do homosexuals choose to include homosexuals with bestiality, idolatry, drunkenness, and the other behaviors Robertson mentioned?

I think it may say something about your world view or morality that you mentally include yourself with others on a list of unrelated behaviors, or automatically assume that was what the commentator was doing.

Continue reading

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site

This is one of the few times I have heard a preacher remind his church members that Jesus Christ put Himself above nuclear family, and spiritual family (other believers in Christ) before flesh and blood relations.

I only listened to this sermon one time, last night, and on Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting For the Faith show, so my memory may not be the greatest, but if I remember correctly, preacher Hamel quotes Christ’s words of (Link): Matthew 12:46-50.

Hamel reminded his congregants to include people in their families who may be lonely, who may be widowed, or so forth. In other words, Hamel was asking them to do what God asks of them in the Bible.

I am surprised that Chris Rosebrough ripped this Hamel guy to shreds over it.

You can listen to Rosebrough pulverize Hamel here (after the commentary about Furtick, Rick Warren, and so on):

(Link): Fighting for the Faith podcast, DECEMBER 16, 2013, Chris Rosebrough, host

    Sermon Review: Netflixmas — Christmas Vacation by Dan Hamel of Southland Christian Church

I like Rosebrough on a personal level. He seems to be a nice guy, and while I do agree with him that a lot of seeker friendly sermons tend to be fluff and light on substance, I do not share his conviction that unless a sermon explicitly mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus and repentance that it is an un-biblical, stupid one worthy of ridicule or condemnation.

Not even Jesus Christ sermonized on repentance every single time he opened his mouth – please see the Gospels for examples.

Sometimes Jesus spoke about people’s earthly concerns, such as divorce, religious hypocrisy, anger, politics, hatred, sexual sin, physical sickness, worry, financial matters, and so forth.

If Rosebrough were to be consistent, he would need to get into a time machine, go back to tell Jesus after hearing Jesus deliver, say, for example, (Link): Matthew 6:33-34,

    “Jesus! Shame on you! You need to repent!
    You did not mention yourself ONCE in that discussion! You did not talk about repentance, salvation, propitiation, or hell!

    All you talked about was God meeting people’s needs! Repent, Jesus! Talk more about yourself next time!

    More soteriology, less pragmatic, earthly concerns discussions! You’re being too seeker-friendly, Jesus, repent!”

If it’s peachy fine acceptable for Jesus to occasionally veer off the ol’ “repent and be saved” sermonizing path, why is it suddenly wrong for a preacher today to do so?

And I can tell you that the church needs MORE of these Hamel-type sermons where they are reminded to stop worshipping their relatives. There are a lot of Christians who are widowed, divorced, never married, who are childless, and their relatives are dead or estranged, and such people should be invited over by the married couples of the churches for dinner, for fellowship.

I have tweeted Rosebrough before about how a lot of churches today have turned marriage (and having children) into an idol.

Some churches teach that marriage is another sort of “gospel,” while some Christian preachers teach that unmarried Christians are not fully in God’s image, while some surveys revealed that a large chunk of Christian women consider their family more important than the Gospel.

There are many un-bibical, weird, awful things Christians are teaching about marriage and singleness out there. I would hope at some point Rosebrough starts to discuss this on his show and/or blog once in a while.

Here are some links from previous blog entries I’ve made (I have many more blog posts about it, these are only a few):

(Link): Creepy: ‘Barna: [Christian] Women Value Family Over Faith’

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Conservative Christian Think Tank Says: “Preach the Gospel of Marriage”

If Rosebrough is upset over Drisocll’s plagairism (and he was, and he called Driscoll to repent over it), I would think he would also be upset, and want to devote some time, to discussing the new trend in Christianity: attacking virginity / celibacy/ singleness, such as (and again these are just a few posts, I have many others on this blog):

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Southern Baptist Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

All those people need to be told to repent of their nuclear family, pro-creation, and marriage idolatry. They need to be told to repent of marginalizing singleness and of putting nuclear family ahead of the Gospel and ahead of helping non-relatives.

So, please, give that Hamel guy a break.
Hamel was reminding Christians to follow Christ’s words of (I mean, dude, a butt load of Christians today are regularly in GROSS VIOLATION of these teachings of Christ, it is NOT legalism to remind them of this),

    (Matthew 10:37) [Jesus speaking],
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

and

    (Matthew 12:46-50)
    He [Jesus] replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
    49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
    50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus said,

    Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6.46)

And (this is Jesus speaking),

    “If you love me, obey my commandments.” (John 14:15)

If you are an unmarried person reading this, you might find Hamel’s sermon a refreshing change of pace from the usual “marriage is so teriffic, you’re less than whole if you are a single!” sermons we hear all the time, so consider giving it a listen.

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site

Jim Bakker Spends Lion’s Share of Christian Show Talking About Bean Burgers

Jim Bakker Spends Lion’s Share of Christian Show Talking About Bean Burgers

I watched an episode of Jim Bakker’s show today or yesterday. I find it very strange that a guy who seems to be passing himself off as a Christian uses his television broadcast time to sell people dried food, wet suits, solar paneled powered thingies, and on the last show, bean burgers.

Bakker had a grill set up in the studio where his assistant cooked a bean burger. I probably watched about 15 minutes in a row before I turned the channel. When I turned back a time or two later, he was still talking about the bean burgers.

Shouldn’t this guy be talking about Jesus Christ on his show? Did bean burgers die for the sins of the world?

You can read more about this oddity at…..

(Link): Jim Bakker’s Supermarket of Doom

    Well, he’s willing to spread the word of God, if you are willing to spread his “favorite” soy-nut butter.

    That’s just one of the hard bargains Jim’s driving in his new incarnation as survivalist food pitchman. In fact, Jim’s got a whole catalog of foodstuffs that he is willing to “give” you as a “thank you” in return for your “love gift” to his “ministry.”

(Link): Jim Bakker’s Doomsday Survival Gear Is Way Overpriced

    On his website, Bakker sells all kinds of things, from jewelry to books to DVDs to, as Talking Points Memo’s Nick R. Martin noticed, “Survival Items to tide you through the End Times when apparently all supplies will be packaged in buckets, like his “Bakkers Dozen Emergency Fuel Buckets” for $800. We assume his customers are happy with whatever items they get in return. But we can’t help but notice he’s charging a lot of money for Doomsday gear.

    Continue reading