Christians Not Only Accept Pre Marital Sex Among Adults But Are Also Now Accepting “Shacking Up” as The New Norm

Christians Not Only Accept Pre Marital Sex Among Adults But Are Also Now Accepting “Shacking Up” as The New Norm

I have blogged on here the past couple years of how morality in the American church has fallen so far, that fornication (pre-marital sex) is now pretty much accepted.

Now, being an actual virgin past the age of 25 or 30 (as opposed to being a “spiritual virgin” or “born again virgin”) is considered, by evangelicals, Neo Reformed, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Non Demoninational members, and Baptists, to be weird or very rare.

Evangelicals and Baptists have no expectation that anyone can or will possess sexual self control and abstain from sex past one’s mid 20s.

Now, it looks like evangelicals and other types of Christians, are caving in to the new trend in secular society: couples living together without being married.

(Link): ‘Preachers of LA’ Puts Spotlight on ‘Shacking Up’ – Can Christian Couples Live Together Before Marriage?

Here is an excerpt, with further comments by me below this excerpt:

BY NICOLA MENZIE , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

December 4, 2013|3:35 pm

One topic in particular featured in the docu-series that elicited strong responses is “shacking up,” or the state of an unmarried couple living together as if they are husband and wife. The situation suggests that a shacking couple is a couple having sex, or facing the temptation to have sex. But is “shacking” even mentioned in the Bible?

In the Oct. 16 airing of episode 2 of “Preachers of L.A.” (“Acceptance”), gospel recording artist and former pastor Deitrick Haddon and his fiancée, Dominique dine with Bishop Ron Gibson and his wife, LaVette, for the purposes, according to Haddon, of getting wisdom from the long-time married couple.

Despite beginning amicably, the meeting quickly turns south as Bishop Gibson states that “a shaky suspect engagement is indicative of a shaky and suspect marriage.”

Cutting to the chase, Gibson asks Haddon, “Are you guys shacking?” Haddon, offended by Gibson’s question, declares that shacking up isn’t in the Bible.

The issue of intimacy involving the Haddons, who have since married, was overshadowed by the fact that Dominique was impregnated by Haddon before his divorce to his first wife was finalized. Haddon, 40, also appeared impatient in early episodes of “Preachers of L.A.” to have his wife, 29, and their two-year-old daughter living together with him under one roof, as opposed to Dominique and their child residing with her mother until the wedding ceremony.

(end quote)

I’m not exactly sure what a “bishop” is especially as opposed to a preacher, but at least the bishop guy was willing to lay it out there and point out to the shacked up couple that couples living together (suggesting sexual involvement) is a sin.

Most preachers today are reluctant to refer to sexual sin as sin; see for example my previous post:
(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among some Christians today – usually the liberals, feminists, and emergents – to redefine what sexual sin is, to criticize the practice of being a virgin until marriage, or to claim that the Bible is so murky and vague about what sexual sin is, that by golly, we all might as well have sex anytime, anywhere, and with whomever we want, because who is to say exactly how God feels about sex?

Which brings me to very good observations made by another writer in an editorial about the bruhaha over Phil Robertson’s (Duck Dynasty Star’s) comments about homosexuality (the most pertinent parts for my purposes are in bold face):

(Link): The Anus Monologues

by Ann Coulter | Dec 31, 2013

… There’s absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures.

But liberals [and feminist and emergent Christians] can’t grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)

So they blamed Robertson for Holy Scripture. True, God created the universe and every living thing, but liberals think they can improve on His work.

Since Robertson’s interview appeared, I haven’t heard as much sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication since I was a teenager in the backseat of a car.

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

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

On today’s “The 700 Club,” a viewer in his early 20s wrote to hosts of the show with a question. The letter writer says he is a virgin and wants to wait for marriage to have sex. The guy said he found out his girlfriend is not a virgin. He wanted to know if dating her is wrong.

You can watch the video yourself here:
(Link): Marriage and Tithing questions (question from male virgin about dating a non virgin)

The 700 Club show provided a transcript:

PAT:

THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD MARRY A VIRGIN. PROBABLY INTERESTING.

THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY HAS A LITTLE [previous (pre marital) sexual] EXPERIENCE ISN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

I DON’T THINK YOU CAN SAY, IF YOUR GIRLFRIEND IS PER MISCOWOUS [sic] AND HOPPING IN AND OUT OF BED WITH MULTIPLE SEX PARTNERS, IF SHE HAPPENED TO HAD AN ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEBODY SHE WAS DEEPLY ATTRACTED TO, GET OVER IT.

—(end quote)—

Keeping in mind that Pat Robertson engaged in fornication himself (see previous posts on this blog for more on that, complete with links), which is why, I suspect, he tends to excuse hetero fornication, any time someone writes in asking him these types of questions.

Robertson told the letter writer, “Having [previous sexual] experience is not necessarily a bad thing.” 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯

Yes, Robertson really said that.

Robertson passes himself off as a Christian. It’s one thing to inform people that sexual sin can be forgiven, which is all well and good, but quite another to tell a virgin, “Having [previous sexual] experience is not necessarily a bad thing,” which is a round-about way of condoning pre-martial sex and denigrating virginity.

A Christian should have very high standards in this area and not teach or endorse anything less than what the Bible says about the topic of sex, and the Bible is clear, yes very clear (I know some “nones,” emergents, and liberals hate it when anyone says the Bible is ‘clear’ on anything, but on some topics, yes, it really is), and the Bible is quite clear that sex is for marriage and marriage only.

That I see self-professing Christians with a huge platform, such as Robertson, with his daily national television show, where he gets to repeat his views to millions, act so dismissive towards virginity, when they should be the first to uphold it, is infuriating and perplexing.

Robertson will sit there and act critical towards homosexuality on some ‘700 Club’ episodes, but he has this double standard where he downplays or excuses hetero sexual sin, especially if it is hetero pre-marital sex.

(It’s usually the reverse these days: I see emergent Christians, and other types of Christians (even conservative and orthodox ones), arguing that hetero singles should abstain from sex, but not homosexuals, because, the thinking goes, pity those poor homosexuals who may never have an avenue to have sex at all, if they stay true to Biblical sexual teachings, and who can expect anyone to stay a virgin over a lifetime – never mind that the same fate befalls hetero singles who may never marry because they are unable to find a suitable partner).

This is also odd on other levels; usually, conservative Christians tell kids and college aged people if they retain their virginity until marriage that they will have mind-blowing, frequent sex – which is of course, not true; I’ve posted many links showing that quite the opposite happens.

But Robertson is going the other route and telling single and virginal Christians that having sexual experience prior to marriage is not a bad thing, and that, he implies, it can even enhance a marriage. It’s remarkable that he is so anti-biblical on the issue of sexual ethics.

Many Christians do not support celibacy or virginity; if anything, some of them denigrate and dismiss both.

You can also watch this Pat Robertson segment on You Tube (the You Tube Link):

---

Related posts this blog:

(Link): Pat Robertson Expects Men to Commit Sexual Sin (and it’s not the first time)

(Link): Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!

(Link): Pope Francis Says ‘Sins of the Flesh’ Aren’t that ‘Serious’ – Joins His Baptist and Protestant Counterparts in Downplaying Sexual Sin

(Link):  Some Researchers Argue that Shame Should Be Used to Treat Sexual Compulsions

(Link): What’s Wrong With PreMarital Sex, Cohabitation and Watching Porn? Apologist Sean McDowell Answers – Critique: Some Christians Marketing Sexual Abstinence as “Purity in Jesus”

(Link): Pope Francis Says ‘Sins of the Flesh’ Aren’t that ‘Serious’ – Joins His Baptist and Protestant Counterparts in Downplaying Sexual Sin

(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): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

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

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

(Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

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

(Link): Pat Robertson raises the old canard about females dressing modestly and males supposedly being visually oriented

(Link): Pat Robertson: (basically): Pre Marital Sex is Okay (or to be totally expected) Because People are “Sexual Beings”

(Link): “He’s Got Muscles” – Pat Robertson Weirdness (Discussing Tebow’s Sexiness)

(Link): Pat Robertson Contradicts Himself On Healing and God’s Will

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson is Fine With Trandgenderism

(Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

(Link): Creepy, Creepy and Sexist Pat Robertson

(Link): Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy

(Link): Robertson Defends His Horrible Advice to Married Woman

Jim Bakker’s Co Host (his wife?) admits to having had five abortions

Jim Bakker’s Co Host (his wife?) admits to having had five abortions

I was watching Jim Bakker’s religious show, and his blond co-host, who I believe is his current wife(?) and her name is Lori (or Lisa?) had five abortions.

Bakker said this on his show, that the blond lady, Lori, admits, in a book she had published, to having had five abortions.

I generally do not support abortion. God can forgive women who have had abortions.

My point here is not to beat up on Lori Bakker for having had abortions.

I’m not sure if when Lori had the abortions if she was a Christian at the time or not (but I do not believe that fully matters).

I would assume Lori was unmarried at the time, that these unborn children were the result of fornication (premarital sex), but I could be wrong about that (after all, sometimes married women get abortions, not just the unmarried).

Assuming she was a single woman, that the unborn she carried and had aborted were the product of pre-marital sex, it’s another nail in the coffin for me personally to the all the Christian pontificating about how deeply they feel sex is for marriage only, that they really do not care or live by these values.

Many Christians only pay lip service to the concept of virginity – while some Christians in recent years have actually begun attacking the concept in books and blogs, saying it is mean spirited to pass virginity off as an expectation, because some fornicators get hurt feelings when they hear that their pre marital sex is a sin.

Anyway, with every passing day, with every passing story and confession of Christian sexual sin, I am realizing that if given precautions (condoms, birth control, legalized abortion), one may as well go out and have sex and not worry about getting pregnant or getting a disease.

There is no expectation for chastity in today’s Christian culture, never mind Non Christian culture. Those of us who have stayed virgins into our 40s get no rewards for it, if anything, churches either ignore us or treat us like losers.

So this lady had FIVE abortions – again, likely due to being sexually promiscuous – and is now married to a semi Christian guy (Bakker) and seems to be living the high life.

She does not appear to have suffered any long lasting damage from sleeping around and having had abortions.

I am not seeing a good foundation or rationale why a grown, single woman should bother remaining a virgin into her forties.

I used to be naive and think that other Christians would respect the fact I was a virgin waiting for marriage to have sex, but now I see 99% of them consider me naive or a freak or a laughing stock; Christians EXPECT me to have sex before marriage and are even FINE and DANDY with it.

Christians can’t wait to reassure me after I have pre marital sex (even if it comes down to getting an abortion afterwards) that God still loves me and forgives me for it all.
——————————–
Related posts this blog

(Link): Youtubers Taste-Test Disgraced Evangelist Jim Bakker’s $175 ‘End-Times’ Food Bucket – And It’s Hilarious

(Link): Older Christian Singles and Celibacy (There Are No Consequences for Sexual Sin)

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity (at least not for anyone past the age of 25)

Tim Challies Christian Blogger Who Proclaimed That All Fornicators Are Virgins Is Now Telling People Not to Look In Lust – WTF?

Tim Challies Christian Blogger Who Proclaimed That All Fornicators Are Virgins Is Now Telling People Not to Look In Lust – WTF?

Hmm. In an older post on his blog, which was replicated at The Christian Post, Tim Challies proclaimed that Jesus is just fine with fornication! Challies proclaimed all fornicators are virgins (which renders the word “virgin,” and the lifestyle and concept thereof, and the Bible’s talk about fornicators being thrown into the Lake of Fire, meaningless).

Yes, he did, see my previous post, here:
(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

Below you will find: link to the Challies post where he urges people not to look at other people in lust, then goes off on some odd tangent about people’s expectations about church, and how your criticism of church amounts to adultery (I take it he means spiritual adultery of some sort), or what not.

Aside from the contradiction – saying ‘no, no, don’t look at others in lust’ when just three months ago he wrote a post saying that fornicators are virgins now, he is now also criticizing people who have had unhappy church experiences or who notice something is not right with their church.

It is a fact that some church goers, including the staff and preacher, are abusive and/or complete assholes.

If you have been hurt by church people, you have every right to be critical of churches and gun shy and hesitant to return. Paul said in the New Testament that Christians are to judge those within church, not to remain silent lest they commit “spiritual adultery” or whatever Challies is rambling on about.

The Challies’ of the world should spend more time comforting the Christian wounded and validating their crummy treatment at the hands of “Christians” than “tsk-tsking” and lecturing the un-churched for being upset over having been treated like shit by a church person or entire church system.

It’s also just plain WEIRD that this dude is attempting to work lust and adultery into his commentary about church… he is sexualizing church.

(Link): It’s Not Just a Guy Thing

by Tim Challies

Every guy has received a warning about “the second glance.” Here’s how it works: When you see an attractive woman, you are morally responsible for the second glance, not the first.

Because you cannot help seeing what is there in front of you, the second glance is the one where you will display sin or virtue.

It is here that you make the moral choice—the choice to lust or the choice to direct your eyes and your thoughts to something that honors God.

I have never been completely comfortable with the second glance logic. More on that in a moment, but first we need to see that this is not only a guy thing.

Women can have the same issue or one that is very closely related. For some women the issue is identical—looking with lust. For others it may be something else, such as alighting your eyes on someone who doesn’t fit in and then allowing yourself condescending thoughts about her.

It may be thinking unkind thoughts about the immodest woman or the too-modest woman or the woman whose children are dressed so perfectly or so imperfectly.

Whether you are a man or woman, you will be tempted at times to allow your eyes to direct you to people who will then take your thoughts in unholy directions. It is a universal problem.

Back to the question: Is it only the second glance that counts? Yes and no.

We have no ability to avoid seeing so much of what we see in the world. At some point we will all see something that feeds one of our great temptations.

We will see someone who is dressed wildly inappropriately or someone who is shamelessly intending to draw attention to themselves. And then it is, indeed, the second glance that counts.

Will we look again? Will we let our eyes linger? Will we look with lust or condescension or judgment? Will we allow this to be an opportunity to gossip? Or will we immediately and sinlessly direct our attention elsewhere?

But here is where it gets a little more complicated. I think we all know by experience that there is more than one way our eyes can take in the world around us.

We can walk into church with our hearts content and enjoying the good things God has given us. We can walk into the mall with our minds submitted to God and eager to please him. And in those times we undoubtedly struggle a lot less with second glances.

That was the first part of his post. I didn’t copy the whole thing.
———————————–
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Anti Virginity Christian Blogger Tim Challies Now Writes: ’31 Days of Purity: My Identity’ – What?

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

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

(Link): Married Christian Couples and Sexual Sin, More Examples – and Women and Porn

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

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Dude Arguing for Legalization of Prostitution Uses Same Rationale as Christians Concerning Celibacy and Sexual Purity

(Link): Married (Christian) People Aren’t More Virtuous Than Christian Singles

(Link): How Christian Teachings on Marriage/ Singleness/ Gender Roles/ Dating Are Keeping Christian Singles Single

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

(Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

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

(Link): Book Review at CP: Sex, Dating, and Relationships: The Dating Friendships Alternative

(Link): Critique of Christianity Today Article: The Real Value of Sex

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Criticism of Purity Teachings by Christians via a Woman’s Personal Testimony

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites * Irony Alert *

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

Hollywood Actress Admits: ‘I waited until I was 29 to lose my virginity’

Hollywood Actress Admits ‘I waited until I was 29 to lose my virginity’

Regarding this quote in article: “she did inevitably have sex before marriage”

Why was it “inevitable”? I’m in my 40s and still a virgin.

Link – Hollywood Actress Admits ‘I waited until I was 29 to lose my virginity’

Actress Tamera Mowry-Housley, 35, uttered a somewhat-surprising admission on Thursday: The “Sister, Sister” and “Tia and Tamera” actress said on Hot97, a New York City radio station, that she waited until she was 29 to have sex. The star noted that her Christian beliefs were the basis of her decision to remain a virgin until such a late age.

Adam Housley, her husband, is a Fox News correspondent and the only man she has been with — a rarity in today’s word, especially among Hollywood performers.

While she did inevitably have sex before marriage, Mowry-Housley decided to then wait three more years until she tied the knot with the journalist, who was her boyfriend at the time.

“I’m religious, so I waited until I was 29 to lose my virginity and then, you may not understand this,” she said of her decision, “[but] I did it and then I felt guilty and then I became celibate until I got married.”

Watch the stunning admission, below (starts at 13:00):

The actress married Housley in 2011 after dating him for six years. Last November, the couple had a son named Aden.

Mowry-Housley appeared on the radio program along with the co-stars of her new television talk show “The Real”: Loni Love (comedian), Jeannie Mai (fashion expert) and Adrienne Bailon (Cheetah Girl).

Critique of CT Article: The Real Value of Sex

Critique of CT Article: The Real Value of Sex

(Link): CT Article: The Real Value of Sex (by Caryn Rivadeneira)

The first problem I have with the editorial by Ms. Rivadeneira: the stock photo accompanying the editorial on the top of the page is a teenage girl kissing a teen-aged guy in her bedroom.

So, right away, this is setting the tone: the author is primarily concerned with people under the age of 25 having sex.

The opening paragraphs are not any better: they talk about college aged women (20 somethings) selling their bodies on websites to older guys (“sugar daddies”) who will pay off their college expenses.

Next up, the author gets into how sexual purity teachings in religious circles (she cites the case of a young Mormon rape victim) make the female fornicators or female sexual abuse victims feel like trash, since such lectures often compare a fornicator (not sexual abuse victims) to “chewed gum” and use other analogies that revolve around the idea of “being used” or “used merchandise.”

I’ve discussed this stealth attack against Christian sexual purity teachings a little bit before, such as (Link): here, (Link): here and (Link): especially here.

Supposedly, so the thinking goes among many liberal Christians, emergents, and feminists, no Christian can or should ever uphold sexual purity as biblical and the right thing to do, because God forbid it might hurt the tender feelings of some woman who had sex with her boyfriend 15 years ago, or that of a 50 year old woman was fondled by her Uncle Herb when she was ten.

The sexual abuse victim has my sympathy for the abuse, but I do not see sexual assault as valid reason to ignore or throw away the Bible’s standards of sexual purity or expectation about people being virgins until marriage, in regards to consensual sex.
(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post, thanks)

Gotta Be Trendy and Relevant – The Church Wants Your Sex Part 3

Gotta Be Trendy and Relevant – The Church Wants Your Sex (Part 3)

Don’t you love how the average conservative Christian has fits that approximately 70% percent of Christians admit to having sex outside of marriage, but then, they turn around and endorse tasteless, provocative sexy sexy sermons in their churches about sex, or provide sexually salacious content on their You Tube church videos or church blogs?

Oh yeah, they like to remind listeners that “sex is only for marriage,” but they don’t seem to care that there are un-married Christians listening who are trying to refrain from sex.

It’s bad enough people are flooded with sex in TV, movies, and secular magazines day in and day out, but preachers insist upon sexing up their sermons and blogs too.

I do want to point out that not all singles struggle heavily with sexual temptation or sexual sin. Too often, singles are depicted as raging hormonal horn dogs. Some of us do experience some sexual desire, but we are not all wanking off to naughty photos or have insatiable pr0n addictions.

But still, the constant refrain on sex by churches means that the issues of virginity and celibacy are ignored. There are celibate singles sitting in the pews, but churches offer them no sermons, tips, advice, or encouragment.

I would assume that a lot of these churches that push these sensationalized sex series think they are being cool, trendy, or relevant. Maybe they think the secular culture considers Christians uptight fuddy-duddies when it comes to sex, and they’re trying to change that perception.

The Bible already says that the world (secular society) is not going to embrace Christians or Christianity. So why would a pastor expect, or even care about, how Non-Christians think how Christians view sex?

Some types of Christians keep saying they want to be “counter cultural.” Well, you know, since secular culture is already steeped to the hilt in sex- it’s in all the advertisements and so on – how “counter cultural” is it really to give church attendees more of the same?

As a Christian woman who has remained a virgin at age 40+, despite all the pressure from secular society to Do The Deed, and in spite of all the feminists in the 1980s during my teen years telling me I’m repressed or not as empowered if I’m not Doing It, and in spite of all the Christian pressure to pair off and marry just to have sex and pop out a kid, I’m already pretty “counter cultural.”

–SEXISM ALERT–

I have noticed in most of the ads for these church-sponsored sex sermons, a female form is chosen for illustrative purposes.

In one graphic for one church’s advertisement, a woman’s feet in pink stiletto heels is shown. In another, part of a woman’s face with red lips is used (that picture included with this post).

Why are these churches not using buff, sexy hot young shirtless men in their ads? Why show close-ups of female body parts? It’s hypocritical and sexist. And notice that the females they choose are always young and white. So we have possible racism and ageism going on as well. / Sexism Alert Over

“The Museum of Idoltary” (alittleleaven.com) has many examples of what it calls “Christian Erotica” that Christians and churches are pushing on the Christian community. Here are a few examples.

(Link): Porn star speaks at Hudsonville church

Adult film actor Ron Jeremy spoke of business, God

Published : Sunday, 21 Oct 2012, 6:53 PM EDT

HUDSONVILLE, Mich. (WOOD) – Hundreds of people attended a Hudsonville church Sunday to hear a famous adult film actor speak at an event.

Ron Jeremy spoke at Daybreak Church in Hudsonville, causing some curious conversations among members of the church.

“Some of the people I work with and some of the people I know were wondering why would he ever be coming to speak at our church,” church member Julie Murphy said.

Jeremy played piano and harmonica to warm up the crowd before his light and upbeat message. He was invited as part of a duo; he spoke alongside California pastor Craig Gross. Gross runs the website http://www.XXXChurch.com, a ministry aimed at helping those with an addiction to pornography.

(Link): Video: Ignite Church Members singing “I’m Sexy and I Know It”

(Link): Sex Sermon by Preacher: Carrot Vs Doughnut

The City Church says Jesus is Bringing Sexy Back

Church has Porn Star Guest Speaker During Church

(Link): video with sermon: Jesus is Bringing Sexy Back

Whoa. I just read the description next to the “Jesus is Bringing Sexy Back” video on the video page (I haven’t watched the video), and this preacher ties the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ to sex? And this is part of his Easter sermons series? What?
(click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post)

How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)

How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)

((DISCLAIMER. This post is addressing consensual sex, NOT sexual abuse or rape.))

As one regular blog visitor, John M.(*) has noted on a prior post or two, Christian culture has a very peculiar habit of holding up Non-Virgins as role models on virginity (or celibacy, sexual purity), and I’m not talking about married Christian people who have remained faithful to their spouse (which is also a tad annoying as far as using marrieds as spokes-persons for singles or for issues singles face), but also people who had sex before they were married.

Often in these stories, the so-called authority on sexual purity had sex as a teen or 20-something, but then decided to stop having sex until marriage. So technically, these sorts of individuals are not virgins.

Some of these individuals, ones who committed fornication, like to call themselves “spiritual virgins,” “secondary virgins” or “born again virgins.”(No, I’m not kidding about that, see this older post at this blog.)

Some Christian organizations, such as Ron Luce’s, teach kids about a concept called “Emotional Virginity.” (Yes, they do. (Link): See this post.)

I can only assume there is a corollary teaching in such groups, something called “Born Again Emotional Virginity,” or “Spiritual Emotional Virginity,” for those teens who have failed to keep “Emotional Virginity.” (Not that I believe in such a concept of “Emotional Virginity” myself; it sounds ridiculous and unbiblical.)

God certainly does forgive people their sexual sin, but coming up with terms such as “born again virgin” and the like to denote that you are forgiven for your fornication, and to ease your conscience on some level, cheapens honest- to- goodness virginity.

Such terminology and such attitudes (and it comes up regularly in secular and Christian feminist, anti- purity/ anti- modesty writings on the internet, too) makes a mockery of those of us who have literally held out past the age of 35 or 40 and are still virgins – not figuratively, allegorically virgin, but really- and- truly- we’ve- never- had- sex variety type of virgin.

-Churches and Christians Hold Up Fornicators As Paragons of Sexual Virtue-

Things get a little stranger when one realizes that in the Christian blogging, television, and magazine world, and on the speaking circuit, Christian fornicators (those who had sex before getting married) are held up as experts or as role models for sexual purity to teen-agers and young adults.

(I’d like to pause here to say, for the billionth time, celibacy and virginity are not just for Christians under the age of 25 or 30, when will the church address the needs and concerns of unmarried celibates past the age of 30? Most Christians continually assume that nobody is strong enough to resist the urge of sex past the age of 25 / 30, which is incorrect, since some of us have in fact done so.)

I just blogged the other day about an article from “Christian Post” online magazine about a woman, Gresh, who is hired to speak to teens or write literature for them concerning sexual purity, yet she had sex when she was 15 years old, and she was not married at the time. She says she regrets having been sexually active outside marriage.

I am not sure why the Christian community likes to hold up failures at sexual mores as pristine examples for youth to follow.

Maybe most Christians assume one who has failed at sexual purity but recommitted to celibacy at a later date is more relateable for teens. Maybe the thinking is such individuals have more insight because they made a mistake but conquered it or learned from it.

Here’s a novel idea, preachers and Christian community:

How about holding up Christians who have not failed at sexual purity as role models for sexual purity? If a Christian did not yield to sexual pressure as a teen or 20 something and is still an actual virgin (not a “born again virgin” but a genuine one) past the age of 40, Christians can learn from them.

The Bible contains advice in the Old Testament along the lines that if you want to know how to become wealthy, hang out with, befriend, and talk to wealthy people. The Bible does not say to hang out with people who are living in poverty or take financial tips from spend thrifts, or to take monetary advice from welfare recipients, now does it? No, it doesn’t.

The Old Testament also says, if you want to find out how to be wise, then associate and question wise people, and learn from the wise. The Bible does not say, “If you want to find out how to be wise, befriend and take advice from the biggest idiots you know, or people who regularly make foolish choices.”

So, wouldn’t it make sense for churches and pastors to point to Christians who are still virgins at age 35 and beyond as experts or role models for sexual purity?

I’m afraid one reason many churches do not is that there are several stereotypes about never-married celibate adults. The truth is that most older celibate Christians are HETERO sexual and have normal sexual drives.

(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post)