Yes, Some Women Use and Look at Pornography

(Link): How Many Women are Addicted to Porn? 10 Stats that May Shock You

Every once in a blue moon, a Christian news sites will publish a story like that, but more often than not, they like to hold up the old tropes about “men are visual, only men want to look at naked bodies,” while women are thought to be cold fish who only want to read “Fifty Shades of Grey.”

From the article:

    Can a woman become addicted to porn? Marnie Ferree, founder of Bethesda Workshops and a specialist in the area of women with sexual addiction, talks about this growing and pressing issue.

    Here’s what the most recent surveys tell us…

    1. According to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Research, about half (49%) of young adult women agree that viewing pornography is an acceptable way of expressing one’s sexuality.

    2. According to a survey of more than 11,000 college-age women, more than half (52%) of young women today are exposed to sexually explicit material by the age of 14.
    3. According to a study published in the CyberPsychology and Behavior, 62% of women have seen pornography by the age of 18.

    Continue reading “Yes, Some Women Use and Look at Pornography”

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

The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin

(the following post contains some “adult” language)
I don’t particularly enjoy writing about homosexuality. I am a social conservative who does not agree with homosexuality, but it’s not one of my favorite topics to go after and opine on, as it often is for other so cons.

Homosexuality is not a topic I care about a lot in and of itself, but why I do address it from time to time on this blog is how it impacts, or interacts with, hetero celibacy, hetero virginity, and how older hetero singles are (mis)treated by Christian culture, and other, related issues pertaining to heteros.

I don’t think most Christians think “being gay is a sin,” but they do believe that sex outside of a one-man married to one-woman marriage is a sin, and that would include one man performing sexual acts on another man, or having sexual fantasies thereof.

I’m not sure why Savage, who is a frothing- at- the- mouth homosexual activist discussed in the article I have linked to below, is taking this route.

Why is Savage bothering with any sort of theological argument, claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality, when homosexual activists are more than happy to be bullies and thugs, are more than happy to sue people into compliance or into silence, harassing them in ceasing criticism, or to get them harassed to the point they get fired from their jobs, or they have to close their businesses? (See for instance: (Link): Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests)

These days, all the HMs (Homosexual Militants, which includes their Hetero supporters) has to do is start screaming, “You’re a bigot and homophobe” and that’s supposed to settle things.

The HMs are the bigots and bullies, not the heteros who don’t agree with homosexuality.

Dan Savage is an anti-Christian, anti-Republican, anti-conservative bigot and all around asshole. Dan Savage is to pro homosexual causes what Fred Phelps of Westboro is to anti homosexual causes.

Here is the article I am blogging about now, with further observations by me below this link:


If you’ve been to this blog before, you know my story: over age 40, hetero, never married, and a virgin (I’ve never had sex. I was waiting for marriage to have sex).

However, I’ve also pointed out I’m slowly leaving the Christian faith, and I no longer personally subscribe to being a virgin until marriage any more – but – I still see that the Bible condemns pre marital sex.

In other words, I’m not going to pull dishonest bullshit like the HMs, or anti-sexual purity emergents, and say, “Oh, the Bible does not forbid homosexual sex or hetero fornication!,” when I know damn well it does.

If you’re going to have sex outside of marriage (and I myself plan on doing so eventually), at least be honest enough to admit that the Bible does NOT have your back on this topic.

The Bible most certainly does condemn pre-marital sex, as well as homosexual sex.

Here are quotes from the article (with additional observations by me below this).


    Sep. 9, 2013 7:49am
    author: Billy Hallowell

    Christians who believe that being gay is a sin that violates biblical tenets now have some competition among their own ranks. As the debate over gay marriage continues to intensify at the local, state and national level, a new group has launched with the sole purpose of giving “LGBT-affirming Christians a means of proclaiming to the world” that there’s nothing sinful about being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender.

    At the center of the NALT Christians Project (NALT stands for “Not All Like That”) is the claim that there’s nothing in the Bible that would contradict or condemn a homosexual lifestyle. The organization intends to reach young people, in particular, with its message urging for inclusion and a new view on biblical texts.

    Founded by John Shore, a blogger and Christian who resides in San Diego, Calif., NALT also has the support of gay rights advocates Dan Savage, Wayne Besen and Evan Hurst (the latter two work for “Truth Wins Out,” an organization that supports the LBGT community). It is Savage’s involvement, though, that is most noteworthy — and for a variety of reasons.

    First and foremost, there’s his complicated history with conservative Christians. Last year, while speaking to teens, he lambasted the Bible, using expletives in an incident that widely made headlines.

    And earlier this summer it was announced that the “It Gets Better” campaign founder will be speaking at the annual Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) convention, yet another surprise considering his involvement in the NALT Christians Project. Savage, who is apparently an agnostic, is putting his full weight behind the NALT project, which will certainly raise some eyebrows.

    In a video announcement supporting the new-found project, he said, that the initiative is meant to reach “Christians who support equal rights.” And he also noted that he’s the individual who coined the “Not All Like That” phrase after interacting with many Christians who said that they do not agree with the hateful tactics that some believers have used in dismissing the gay community.

Christians already believe homosexuals have “equal rights.”

What Christians disagree with is that SSA (Same Sex Attraction) is good, normal, biblical, and that it’s morally acceptable for unmarried people to engage in sexual acts. Christians also teach that about HETERO unmarried people (that it is not right for them to have sex outside of marriage), so there is no double standard in that regard.

However, please see this post at this blog:
(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

Continuing quotes (Link): from the article:

    “If you’re a Christian who believe God cares no more about a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity than God cares about the color of a person’s hair or eyes make a Not All Like That video,” Savage said.

    “If you don’t take that step, if you don’t step up then your silence allows the Tony Perkins and the Pat Robertsons of this world to speak for you and to continue doing real harm not to just LBGT people, but also to Christianity itself.”

    Savage’s views naturally carry through to the group’s overarching aims and goal set. The main premise of the project is that Christians have badly handled the gay issue and that there’s actually no reason why believers shouldn’t be supporting homosexuals.

    In a letter published on the NALT website, Shore charged that many Christians have used the Bible and churches to “bully, malign and shame LGBT people,” also claiming that those believers who support gays and lesbians have not stood up to these attacks fervently enough. In the note, Shore also called for a “renewed Christianity” that doesn’t stand for bigotry and that focuses upon the love that Jesus Christ represented.

    NATL’s recent launch included 30 videos featuring Christians and others supporting gays and lesbians (watch of the clips here). The challenge, as Time notes, will be for Shore, Savage and others to figure out just how many Christians agree with the notion that gay marriage isn’t anti-biblical. The faith has long held, based on the holy book’s interpretation, that living a gay lifestyle is sinful.

Savage keeps making this out to be about a person’s “orientation,” where again, I think most Christian interpretation of the Bible condemns the sinful thought lives, or actions and behaviors.

It’s fine to be HETERO and a woman who is attracted to men, but according to Jesus, it’s not fine for that woman to then sit around having X-rated fantasies of doing the nasty with some man you have a crush on.

Same teaching applies to hetero males: they are not to look after women in lust.

Jesus says lusting after someone is the same thing, or just as bad as, adultery. In the same way, Jesus would not be cool with a man having X-rated fantasies of having sex with another man.

Many of the same sexual rules or ethical standards in the Bible apply equally to homosexuals as they do to hetero.

It’s not rocket science. There is no “get out of jail free, do anything you want to sexually” card regarding biblical sexual teaching.

There is no verse or passage in the Bible that says any sex at all, at any time, with anyone, is peachy and fine, so go to it and don’t feel bad or guilty about it.

There are limits placed on sexual activity in the Bible for every one.

At least I’m honest enough to admit that when I do start having pre- marital sex (and again, I am hetero), the Bible does not support me on it.

To see that same level of honesty from HMs would be refreshing, but they want the Bible to teach something it simply does not teach.

It’s funny to me that homosexual militants can’t just let people agree to disagree with them; they want, and pathetically need, whole-scale acceptance from every one and celebration -not just tolerance- but celebration of their sexuality, or sexual actions.

They want to force people to “like” homosexuality. You can’t force every one to like homosexuality any more than you can force every one to like cabbage, the color green, skinny ties, rocky road ice cream, or watching football.

It is also my opinion that homosexual militants, like some hetero sex-obsessed preachers (eg, Mark Driscoll) have turned sex into an idol. They seek after sex and sexual experiences, not the God of the Bible.

If Christians did a better job supporting hetero celibate adult singles (they do a piss poor job at this, and many churches treat adult singles like crap), treating singles better would have gone a long way in heading off a lot of problems now being created by homosexual militants.
Related posts this blog:

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

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

Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

The Way We Never Were (book – Family Idol)

The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz (Author)

Someone on the Jesus Creed blog mentioned the book “The Way We Never Were.”

(Link): BOOK REVIEW : Skewering Myths About the Family : THE WAY WE NEVER WERE: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz

Review is from 1992, by CONSTANCE CASEY. Excerpts:

    American families have changed in the last 20 years–nearly half of all families with children have both parents working–and our anxiety about change is no delusion.

    There has certainly been some decay in values recently. As Coontz tartly observes, “Twenty-five percent of the people polled in a recent national inquiry into American morality said that for $10 million they would abandon their entire family; a large number of people are evidently willing to do the same thing for free.”

    Coontz believes that what we’re experiencing now, however, is not so much the family’s dissolution as “an erosion of commitment to social obligations in general, and to children in particular.” Furthermore, things weren’t all that great before.

    Chapter by chapter, Coontz takes on the myths. Divorce may end many marriages now, but largely because of high mortality rates, the average length of marriage in Colonial times was less than 12 years.

    The “Life With Father” Victorian family–in which men were the breadwinners and women the domestic angels–owed its existence to the fact that other families were poor. Middle-class women had time to spend with their children because they employed laundresses and maids and cooks. Often these German or Welsh or Irish immigrant servant “girls” really were girls, as young as 11.

    While 20% of American children today are poor, she writes, “At the turn of the century the same proportion lived in orphanages, not because they actually lacked both parents, but because one or both parents simply could not afford their keep.”

    Coontz’s take on the Golden Age of the family–Ward and June, Ozzie and Harriet–is not brand new, but worth restating. “The apparently stable families of the 1950s were the result of an economic boom–the gross national product grew by nearly 250% and per capita income by 35%.” Most important, there was steady employment for the Ward Cleavers of America.

    Ozzie never came home with a pink slip and never applied for welfare. But the Nelsons and the Cleavers were generously underwritten by the federal government. Because of the extraordinary boom, the feds could afford to be generous with everything from education money to housing loans and highway construction.

    Part of the mythology of the Golden Age was that only morally deficient families required government help. As refutation, Coontz provides a wonderfully specific example–Phil Gramm, senator from Texas and staunch opponent of government handouts: “Born in Georgia in 1942, to a father who was living on a federal veterans disability pension, Gramm attended a publicly funded university on a grant paid for by the federal War Orphans Act. His graduate work was financed by a National Defense Education Act fellowship, and his first job was at Texas A & M University, a federal land-grant institution.”

    Coontz makes it hard for us to blame the usual suspects for family decay–those negligent working mothers and those immoral teen-age girls. She demonstrates that most of the family problems associated with working women rise from “the inadequate and incomplete integration of women into productive work.” And she charges that, “The image of teen-age girls having babies to receive welfare checks is an emotion-laden but fraudulent cliche.” If welfare benefits cause teen pregnancy, “why is it that other industrial countries, with far more generous support policies for women and children, have far lower rates of teen pregnancy?” (Incidentally, the highest rate of teen-age childbearing in 20th-Century America was in 1957.)

    “Children do best,” Coontz concludes, “in societies where child-rearing is considered too important to be left entirely to parents.” In order to be elected these days, candidates have to demonstrate that they care deeply about their own children. We should demand that they also care about other people’s children.

Info on the book:

    The Way We Never Were examines two centuries of American family life and shatters a series of myths and half-truths that burden modern families. Placing current family dilemmas in the context of far-reaching economic, political, and demographic changes, Coontz sheds new light on such contemporary concerns as parenting, privacy, love, the division of labor along gender lines, the black family, feminism, and sexual practice.


    Did you ever wonder about the historical accuracy of those “traditional family values” touted in the heated arguments that insist our cultural ills can be remedied by their return?

    Of course, myth is rooted in fact, and certain phenomena of the 1950s generated the Ozzie and Harriet icon. The decade proved profamily–the birthrate rose dramatically; social problems that nag–gangs, drugs, violence–weren’t even on the horizon.

    Affluence had become almost a right; the middle class was growing. “In fact,” writes Coontz, “the ‘traditional’ family of the 1950s was a qualitatively new phenomenon. At the end of the 1940s, all the trends characterizing the rest of the twentieth century suddenly reversed themselves.”

    This clear-eyed, bracing, and exhaustively researched study of American families and the nostalgia trap proves–beyond the shadow of a doubt–that Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary.

    Gender, too, is always on Coontz’s mind. In the third chapter (“My Mother Was a Saint”), she offers an analysis of the contradictions and chasms inherent in the “traditional” division of labor.

    She reveals, next, how rarely the family exhibited economic and emotional self-reliance, suggesting that the shift from community to nuclear family was not healthy.

    Coontz combines a clear prose style with bold assertions, backed up by an astonishing fleet of researched, myth-skewing facts.

    The 88 pages of endnotes dramatize both her commitment to and deep knowledge of the subject. Brilliant, beautifully organized, iconoclastic, and (relentlessly) informative The Way We Never Were breathes fresh air into a too often suffocatingly “hot” and agenda-sullied subject.

    In the penultimate chapter, for example, a crisp reframing of the myth of black-family collapse leads to a reinterpretation of the “family crisis” in general, putting it in the larger context of social, economic, and political ills.

    The book began in response to the urgent questions about the family crisis posed her by nonacademic audiences. Attempting neither to defend “tradition” in the era of family collapse, nor to liberate society from its constraints, Coontz instead cuts through the kind of sentimental, ahistorical thinking that has created unrealistic expectations of the ideal family.

    “I show how these myths distort the diverse experiences of other groups in America,” Coontz writes, “and argue that they don’t even describe most white, middle-class families accurately.” The bold truth of history after all is that “there is no one family form that has ever protected people from poverty or social disruption, and no traditional arrangement that provides a workable model for how we might organize family relations in the modern world.”

    Some of America’s most precious myths are not only precarious, but down right perverted, and we would be fools to ignore Stephanie Coontz’s clarion call. –Hollis Giammatteo

    From Publishers Weekly

    The golden age of the American family never existed, asserts Coontz ( The Social Origns of Private Life ) in a wonderfully perceptive, myth-debunking report. The “Leave It to Beaver” ideal of breadwinner father, full-time homemaker mother and dependent children was a fiction of the 1950s, she shows.

    Real families of that period were rife with conflict, repression and anxiety, frequently poor and much less idyllic than many assume; teen pregnancy rates in the ’50s were higher than today.

    Further, Coontz contends, the nuclear family was elevated to a central source of personal satisfaction only in the late 19th century, thereby weakening people’s community ties and sense of civic obligation.

    Coontz disputes the idea that children can be raised properly only in traditional families. Viewing modern domestic problems as symptoms of a much larger socioeconomic crisis, she demonstrates that no single type of household has ever protected Americans from social disruption or poverty.

    An important contribution to the current debate on family values.

The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

(Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

Here are a few excerpts from that page:

    Aug 2013
    by Adam Hamilton

    Churches don’t often spend a lot of time reminding people of the beauty and importance of sexual intimacy. Conversely, society tends to trivialize and cheapen it. People talk about “hooking up” or having “friends with benefits.” From that perspective, sex becomes not the culmination of a deep, meaningful relationship, but instead merely an end in itself. It has become commonplace in our society to think that after a first or second date, a couple might sleep together.

    … Here’s the challenge with hooking up or friends with benefits: We’re simply not ready to reveal our innermost selves to another human being after one or two dates; the bonding that happens is premature.

    … I invite you, even if you have been intimate with another in the past, to reclaim the idea that sex is purposeful and meaningful, and it isn’t something to be trivialized.

Please click the link above to read the entire page.

I have to disagree with the author on a few points.

It seems to me most preaching about marriage and sex does in fact contain a lot of commentary by the preacher about how sex is “important” and “beautiful,” and they almost always tack on “within marriage, of course.”

Here is the response I left on the page:

It’s also the Christian culture in American that trivializes sex, not just secular society.

Some preachers have turned sex into an idol, such as Ed Young Jr and Mark Driscoll, who either preach about sex in very graphic terms from the pulpit on a regular basis, or who pull sexually tinged stunts during church, such as erect stripper poles in the church, or put a bed on the church roof and get into that bed with their wives. (Please look up the WND editorial “The Church of Sex” for more information about that.)

I’m in my early 40s now, was a Christian since childhood, desired marriage, was hoping to marry a Christian, but marriage never happened for me, and so I’m still a virgin.

Churches do not support virginity- until- marriage for adults past their mid twenties or early 30s. The concept or ideal of virginity is only given support to the under- 25 age group. Even this blog page seems to assume any and all singles reading it have engaged in sexual sin previously – some of us have not.

If you are an older virgin such as me, you get no support from Christian culture, which is absolutely obsessed with marriage, kids, and the “traditional family,” all of which have been turned into idols that conservative Christians worship.

Family is often placed on equal footing or above God Himself, when Jesus said that if you put your traditional family before him or on the same level as, you are not worthy to be His follower. Christians regularly ignore that passage and other ones where Christ taught that your spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ are to come *before* your flesh and blood family.

As a never married adult, I feel excluded by churches that run about saying they are a “family” church, or who have the phrase “We are a FAMILY church!” printed on their signs and bulletins, because I know dang well they mean family as in “Dad, Mom, and 2.5 kids,” and not “spiritual family of God.”

Preachers rarely address uplifting, encouraging sermons to older singles that promote celibacy and present lifelong celibacy as being obtainable. Life long celibacy is thought of as being an impossibility.

Preachers / Christian culture do nothing to affirm singlehood, but often treat it like a less than desirable state and one that needs to be “cured,” and the insulting idea held by many Christians is that marriage is the only life milestone that truly makes one a full fledged adult.

I would still like to get married. The problem is that another segment of Christians, while they do affirm singlehood in a manner, they do so to the unbiblical point that they over- spiritualize singlehood.

Meaning, they shame singles who want marriage by telling them cliched nonsense like, “Jesus is all you need,” “but just think you have more time to serve God!,” or “The Lord is your husband,” or, “don’t make marriage into an idol.” Singles who desire marriage don’t need to hear any of that, it is hurtful, annoying, and insulting.

Singles should not be mistreated or ignored in their single state, but neither should they be shamed for desiring marriage, either.

Celibacy is misunderstood by churches and Christians: God does not wipe away the sexual desires of celibates, nor does God grant us special powers or grace to be celibate: I am celibate at my age through sheer will power and by my choice alone; not by special gifting of God.

Most sermons by most churches are about marriage and how to have an awesome marriage. So singles cannot relate to any of that.

When sex is discussed from the pulpit or in Christian media, it’s only to tell singles that “sex outside of marriage is wrong,” and it’s often mentioned that, “but we know nobody past age 25 can resist sex and that all singles are having sex, so just remember God will forgive you your sexual sin.”

This is a false view: people can in fact resist sex into their 30s, 40s, and older, but preachers never acknowledge this; they assume in their books, blogs, and sermons that everyone and anyone by age 40 has had sex at least once.

And this assumption is very demoralizing for those of us in our 30s, 40s and older and who are still virgins, because we are not even acknowledged to exist. We have upheld biblical purity teachings, but we get no kudos from churches, no support.

Meanwhile, liberal, emergent, and even many so-called conservative Christians downgrade sexual purity and virginity, such as SBC Russell Moore and Christian blogger Tim Challies, who chide older virgins for supposedly valuing virginity too much and for being “prideful” about it (even though we are not prideful). They also pretty much argue that Christians over- value virginity and should stop valuing virginity.

The liberal, and/or ‘bleeding heart’ types of Christians think that sexual purity/ virginity standards are mean-spirited and hurtful because they make many female fornicators feel guilty, ashamed and bad about their sexual sin, so they want Christians to stop upholding purity and virginity teachings.

American Christians spout off a lot of commentary about how they support virginity and purity, but they really do not – one way they drop the ball is by neglecting older singles.

Churches love to support teens and 20 somethings and young married couples with kids by word (in sermons, preaching material) and in practical terms (such as financing a lot of activities for youth), but if you do not fall under any one of those demographics, you are invisible to most churches. Most churches do not spend near as much money on never married adults over age 30 as they do the teen agers.

I have a blog called “Christian Pundit” where I have blogged about these issues and more, like how married Christians harbor many mean, unfair, cruel and inaccurate caricatures of older never married, childless adults, how there are double standards running amok (ie, there is a segment of Christians who expect hetero singles to abstain from sex but feel it’s acceptable for homosexual singles to have sex with each other).

Married Christians often assume that single Christian adults are immature, sleazy, or not as godly as married couples, but I have blog post after blog post with links to news sources, some to Christian news sites, of Christian men who have been arrested for murder, wife abuse, picking up prostitutes, and some have admitted to having dirty web site addictions, etc.

Married Christian couples are simply not more godly, mature, or responsible than single adults. But that stereotype exists in churches today, many of whom refuse to allow singles of either gender to hold teaching positions or other positions of responsibility or leadership.

(My Christian Pundit blog should not be confused with another of a very similar name – someone else has a blog called “THE Christian Pundit,” which is not mine. My blog does not have the word “The” before “Christian Pundit”)

I would also encourage anyone reading this to read the book “Quitting Church” by Julia Duin, who records incidents of unmarried Christians who have either been ignored by churches or mistreated, all over being single. She explains why adults singles are quitting churches.

I would also recommend the book “Singled Out” by Christian authors Field and Colon with more of those examples, and how the church has erred in how it preaches and teaches about celibacy, virginity, sex, dating and marriage, and ironically, some of the very teachings Christians use to keep singles in line and avoid fornication either lead to more fornication by singles, or are at the root cause as to the huge epidemic of prolonged, unwanted singleness among Christians.

Most of us single Christians wanted marriage, but Christian teachings on gender roles, marriage, sex, etc, has caused us to stay single into our middle age. See my blog for more information on that.

I no longer care about remaining a virgin until marriage, and I also have given up on the “only be yoked to a believer” teaching. I have waited long enough for marriage and sex, and am now willing to have pre- marital sex and date/marry a Non Christian.

No offense to the other poster below, but as a 40 something “technical virgin” (I am a real deal virgin, not merely a virgin in an allegorical sense), I take a bit of offense at how Christians who have had pre-marital sex go around using the terms “born again virgin” or “secondary virgin” to describe themselves, as it sort of cheapens the word “virgin.”

Either one is a virgin or is not. If you fornicated previously (by choice) at some stage in your life, you are a forgiven sexual sinner, not a “born again virgin” or “spiritual virgin.”

I apologize for such a long post, but these issues are hardly ever discussed among Christians, the opportunities to discuss them are few and far between.
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): WARNING and NOTICE On Vulgar Language on This Blog

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

(Link): The Myth of the Gift – Regarding Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

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

(Index Topic Link): Married Christian Couples Engage in Sexual Sin (examples, editorials)

(Link): Christians and Cheap Grace Concerning Sexual Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Link): Example of How Christian Teaching About Sex, Marriage, and Gender Creates Hang Ups and Entitlements Among Christians

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

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One (not how it is taught by most Christians)
Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.

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

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

About two weeks ago, after Thabiti Anyabwile of the Gospel Coalition published a blog page going on about how homosexual sexual acts are (to paraphrase him) “gag worthy,” Christians, particularly emergents, went into an uproar over it, saying how insensitive Anyabwile was being.

A few atheists, whose pastimes include commenting on Christian culture online, also wrote about it to condemn it. Here are a few examples:

(Link): Gag Me – by Michael Kimpan (identifies as Christian)

This is by an atheist (I will not link to his page because I do not want a track back link to appear):

1. Christian Pastor: If We Describe Gay Sex to People, They’ll Turn Against Homosexuality!, by Hema Mehta (identifies as atheist).
The URL is

2. (Link): Responding to homophobia in the Christian community – Rachel Held Evans
(Evans identifies as Christian; she typically blogs against sexual purity / virginity teachings for hetero people, and in favor of showing sensitivity, that in my opinion, borders on full- on acceptance and celebration of homosexuality; I am unclear if she supports homosexuality itself)

3. (Link) Your Gagging Isn’t Loving , from “Alise Write” blog

The current “Alise Write” blog link is not working; try the Cached Page (“Your Gagging Is Not Loving”)

I assume that Alise considers herself a Christian, and she seems to self-identify as “gay affirming.”

There are two issues I take with all the hand-wringing or outrage over the Anyabwile blog page, or any time the liberals and emergents have a fit over any Christian who says or writes anything about homosexuality in less than fully glowing, supportive terms.

First of all, the Bible calls all unmarried people to refrain from having sex, so whether hetero or homosexual, if one claims to be a Christian, one should not be having sex outside of marriage anyway.

Ergo, I’m not sure how pertinent it was for Anyabwile to go into detail about homosexual sex acts (and you bet your sweet bippy he sure did), but it was also not very relevant for the emergents or “gay affirmers” to spaz out over it, either.

I read Anyabwile’s page only once, but so far as I recall, he did not condemn anyone for having SSA (same sex attraction) or homosexual urges/ attractions, but only seemed to criticize them for acting upon those desires (e.g., men actually having anal sex, for instance).

As Christians have believed for centuries that sex outside of marriage is wrong, since that is what the Bible says on the topic, why would anyone disagree with Anyabwile for supporting celibacy for unmarried people, or, to state it in the converse, for not supporting sexual acts outside of marriage?

You can read the blog page that started the kerfuffle here:
(Link): The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage” by Anyabwile

Anyabwile wrote a follow up here (which I have not read yet):
(Link): On Homosexuality and the Conscience: Responding to Criticisms

My second point.

What I continue to see are emergent, liberal, or overly sensitive, politically correct, conservative Christians clucking in concern over hurting the feelings of homosexuals, but these same groups are fine with attacking virginity among hetero Christians, or virginal Christians themselves.

See, for example, (posts this blog):
(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): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

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

I have yet to see an emergent Christian, liberal Christian, or sensitive conservative Christian, support virginity until marriage as concept (for anyone who is still a virgin past age 25 – 30), or to actually support actual Christian virgins themselves (e.g., churches encouraging families to “adopt” older singles for the holidays so they don’t have to spend holidays alone; spending as much money on singles church services as they do for youth; there are no sermons about singleness, but many on marriage, etc).

On the contrary, the emergents and others – who claim to be Christian – routinely write blog pages criticizing biblical, sexual purity and virginity teachings and morality, blathering on about how “hurtful” they are to women. 🙄

As far as I am concerned, it is a double standard and hypocritical for Christians to clutch their pearl necklaces in concern that a homosexual’s feelings might be hurt over a blog post that talks about “gag reflexes,” or that mentions homosexual acts are sinful, but then sit around, as they do, offending me (an older Christian virgin, who is hetero) by repeatedly stomping all over biblical sexual ethics, and saying virginity means nothing, is over-rated, or is a judgmental concept that Christians should rid themselves of.

This gets into the general problem I have with Christians and hypocrisy in the realm of compassion:

Just as some Christians will only show empathy for starving African orphans or homeless crack addicts, but will judge and condemn the “Average Joe” Christian who is going through a nasty divorce, a cancer scare, or a death in the family, the emergents and touchie-feelie-for-homosexual Christians (sometimes they are one in the same), only extend compassion and respect for one group – homosexuals being criticized by Christians – but show none for mature virginal Christians who are and have been criticized by Christians. I have written about this before:
(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

Here is a thoughtful response that critiques Rachel Held Evan’s post (by Jeff G.):
(Link): Rachel Held Evans – Is the gag reflex a legitimate moral compass?

I agree with Jeff G’s critique in that RHE was incorrect in hers to suggest it is wrong to define an entire group of people based upon their sexual acts, when in fact, that is what many vocal homosexuals in the “rights” groups have been doing to and for themselves for decades now. Quoting Jeff G:

    Again, if Anyabwile were really saying this it would indeed be problematic. Nowhere does he suggest that copulation fully defines homosexuals any more than it defines heterosexuals. Ironically, it is the GLBTQ community itself that has posited sex acts and sexuality as the basis of identity differentiation.

As for the homosexuality debate itself, I do not trust or respect the militants. Please note I used the term “militants.”

I don’t have a problem with ordinary homosexuals who simply live out their lives quietly like the rest of us, but I am talking about the intolerant ones who are consumed with forcing their views and sexuality on to other people.

Here are a few reasons below why I do not support, respect, or agree with the militant homosexuality supporters or the movement itself; has Rachel Held Evans, the Friendly Atheist, or any other “gay affirming” emergents condemned this sort of behavior by homosexual activists? If not, why not?

(Link): NSFW photos, adult males nude engaged in sex acts in public – Folsom Street Homosexual Fair in San Fran, from Zombie’s blog
(NOTE: the link I am giving you above will send you to a “warning” page that asks you to click a certain link if you are age 18 or above; there is no nudity on that particular page itself)

(Link): Gay Couple to Sue Church of England to Force It to Perform Gay Weddings (Coming soon to America?)

(Link): How “Gay Rights” is Being Sold to America

(Link): Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Dan Savage is a homosexual activist:

(Link): Anti-bullying advocate Dan Savage wishes cancer on Sarah Palin

(Link): It gets better? ‘Anti-bullying’ bully Dan Savage bashes ‘batsh*t’ Bachmann; Heal thyself, dude

(Link): Stand Up to Dan Savage’s Bullying

(Link): Dan Savage Bullies Christian Teens in Speech at Anti-Bullying Conference, Says to Ignore “Bull****” in the Bible
Related links this blog:

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

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position
Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.

Christian Post interview with T D Jakes: Family, Family, Family

Christian Post interview with T D Jakes: Family, Family, Family

They even managed to work the word “family” into the heading:

(Link): Interview: T.D. Jakes on Faith, Family and the Scripture He Turns to in Difficult Times

A few quotes from the article (with emphasis added by me in bold) -notice how often motherhood, fatherhood, and “family” is mentioned, but when mentioned, they are not referring to “family of God,” but to the “traditional family,” comprised of flesh and blood relatives:


    DALLAS, Texas— Bishop T.D. Jakes of The Potter’s House and CEO of MegaFest 2013 spoke with The Christian Post at the kickoff of the three-day inspirational festival about the importance of having a personal relationship with God. Jakes also explained why adults need to step up and set the example of making their Christian faith the foundation for the family to depend on through all of life’s tragedies and disagreements.

    [Interviewer Question]
    … Why is it important to have a Christ-centered family? With the millions of children who are being raised in fatherless homes, why is it important for an adult in the family to step up and teach the younger generations how to establish a strong faith in Jesus Christ?

    I think that Christianity for the Christian family becomes the ideal to which we aspire. And we grumble with the realities of being human, and having human children, and human relatives and human friends. And those are realities that we can’t totally divorce ourselves from, but if we don’t have a common ideal, then there’s no cohesiveness to which we can galvanize a family and build your life around.

So, once more, the picture I get from reading what Christians have to say about Christianity may lead one to think one has to be married and have children – be in a “family” (ie, nuclear family) – to be a real Christian or to experience Christianity. If so, that would mean that myself and a hella lot of other people do not qualify.

Knock it off with the all the family talk, preachers and Christians. There are never married, childless adults in America too, as well as widowers and divorced people. The reason a big chunk of Christians are no longer attending churches anymore is because they are single and/or childless and cannot cope with yet another sermon on marriage or kids. You want your church membership rolls to increase? Start paying attention to adult singles and their needs.
Related posts, this blog

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

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

(Link): American Christians Idolize Motherhood – Mommy Rhapsody

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

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

(Link): Un Happy Mother’s Day – universal church continues to worship parenthood, family

(Link): Focusing on the Family Causes Church Decline

(Link): Being Single In The Church (article)

(Link): The Decline in Male Fertility (article)

(Link): The Deification of Family and Marriage (re: Kyle Idleman book)

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

(Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): Childfree Christians / Childfree childless

(Link): Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts

(Link): Fatherhood Not Quite the Producer of Manly, Mature, Godly Men Some Conservative Christians Make It Out To Be

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

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

(Link): Southern Baptists – Still Majoring in the Minors and ignoring the never married (singles) – Why Church Membership is Down

(Link): Christians and Churches Discriminate Against Unmarried People / Singles

(Link): Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville

(Link): A Critique of the Family-Integrated Church Movement by Brian Borgman – Christians turning the family into an idol

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Refreshing: Christian Researcher Disputes that Youths Are Leaving Churches in Droves, Disagrees that Churches Should Be Family Focused

On Miley Cyrus Being Sexual at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists

On Miley Cyrus Being a Bimbo at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists

I am making a prediction: as of right now (Aug 29 edit: my prediction came true, see bottom of this post for more links from Christian magazines who began publishing commentary on Cyrus), I see no editorials about Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance mentioned on The Christian Post or Christianity Today, but I am more than willing to bet the editorials condemning her as being a poor role model will start showing up in such publications in the following days, and I further predict Christians will use Cyrus as an example of how secular culture distorts or devalues sex.
EDIT, Aug 31.
By the way, yes, my prediction came true. Christian response to Cyrus’ show is late and lagging behind the secular media reaction. I’m still seeing Christians opine about this Aug 31 – by this point, IMO, it’s too late. Jumping on the story to comment on it now seems way too late. I don’t know why Christians do this, they’re always two or three steps behind secular culture.
Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host, will probably devote a segment on her radio show in the coming days to how society has gone down the toilet sexually, and point to Cyrus as an example.

Miley Cyrus is a twenty year old pop singer.

Cyrus performed with singer Robin Thicke on stage at the Video Music Awards show recently, and her performance included some racy dance moves, such as wiggling her ass up and down by Thicke’s crotch.

Thicke is a 36 year old married man, married to someone named Paula.

Remember how I have pointed out that there is no expectation of virginity- until- marriage from secular society or from Christians (not for anyone over the age of 25 – 30)?

Another example of this type of thinking was in an editorial today about Cyrus’ VMA performance.

I wish I had saved the link, but in the piece, the lady author said a few times that parents today are very naive to think that any 20 year old woman is a virgin.

If I can find that editorial, I will link to it. I thought I had bookmarked it, but I don’t see it in my bookmarks. This might be it:

(Link): Miley Cyrus is Sexual, Get Over It By Pepper Schwartz, Special to CNN

Quote by the author:

    It’s shocking all right. But let’s face it. A 20-year-old these days is unlikely to be a virgin and if she’s in the fast lane (read: Hollywood, New York City and other big cities) she is not going to look innocent. Shocked at Miley? Have you noticed your average 15-year-old girl lately? She has her midriff bared, she’s wearing her underwear for the world to see and her skirt may or may not cover her butt and crotch.

The fact is, there are in fact 20 year old women who are virgins today, but they do not get any media coverage.

I was once a virgin at 20 years of age. I’m in my early 40s and still a virgin, not from lack of opportunity for sex, but that I chose to refrain until marriage.

Here are a few other commentaries on the Cyrus story:

This editorial attempts to absolve Cyrus by criticizing Thicke, but I feel both Cyrus and Thicke were in poor taste:

(Link): Miley’s Need to Shock Was the Least Shocking Thing About It – Jezebel

I find it very disturbing that so many commentators on the internet are fine and peachy with Cyrus acting like a total whore and trying to justify the whore-a-bility, but then they act indignant that she is using black culture.

Said someone in the comments of that page on the Jezebel site:

    posted by ImmaHaveToInterruptYouU

    Yep. I don’t care about Miley Cyrus trying to be “sexy.” She’s 20. She’s allowed to be as sexy as she wants. …

    I mean you saw the way she [Cyrus] smacked that black woman’s butt and pretended to tongue it – objectifying black women’s bodies while simultaneously profiteering off of working-class black culture – ugh.

My reaction: so you would have been fine if Cyrus had been pretending to lick the ass of a white woman? Your only outrage is that the woman in question was black? That’s a strange set of morals.

I also do not understand how one can be fine with a young woman objectifying herself (and at that, based on standards that some white men find appealing and sexy), but that same commentator is upset Cyrus was supposedly objectifying another woman? Is that commentator fine with white women objectifying other white women? That is not consistent.

“Slut Shaming”

Quite a number of people online are defending Cyrus, and what they basically argue comes down to saying any criticism at all of a woman behaving in a vulgar way is tantamount to “slut shaming,” and that “slut shaming” is wrong. I disagree, depending on how we are examining this topic.

One of the few problems here is that people apply slut shaming only to females who behave like dogs in heat, but not to men who misbehave sexually on stage, in music videos, and so on.

Perhaps if there was a little less acceptance by both genders of both genders acting like tramps, and if people felt a bit more shame for acting like whores, there would be more decency in society… not as many abortions, not as many cases of sexually transmitted diseases, and so forth.

I hate the phrase “slut shaming” and wish it would go away. It’s one of the dumbest phrases I’ve ever heard, and it defines an even dumber concept.

I thought this comment by LosPollos on that same page was a bit more reasonable:

    Oh come on. I’m no Thicke fan but to say that he was somehow in charge of that shitshow is just ridiculous. I think Miley is a powerful enough young woman to get what she wants, and to imply that she was just playing the “young near-naked woman” in a Thicke-controlled clusterfuck is just insulting to her.

    She appropriates cultures that aren’t hers, she’s desperate to shock and she’s heavily embarrassed herself. Thicke was an afterthought; he looks as embarrassed as everyone else did. He’s a dick and the performance was stupid, but I think we all know that Miley was in charge of that whole thing.

    I am assuming that this is the point of this article, but it’s so all over the place that it just reads like a reactionary defense of Miley Cyrus with no actual defense

That writer raises an interesting point.

Secular feminists want to argue on the one hand that women are in control of their bodies and sexuality and should be able to act like big old whores with no repercussions or criticism from anyone at any time.

But, the moment a woman chooses to use her body and sexuality to act like a brazen whore on stage (and receives some criticism over this), feminists do not hold that woman responsible, but rally the troops around her to defend her.

Secular feminists want women to be able to make any and all choices (especially about their bodies and sexuality), but they do not believe that women should be held accountable or be held responsible for those choices. They want freedom without consequence, without criticism. Nobody I know lives in a universe like that, not men, not women, not blacks, not whites.

Further, Miley Cyrus is not the universal, end all, be all representative of all women everywhere. Cyrus does not speak for me. I do not feel as though she represents me.

Ergo, if other people want to criticize Cyrus for acting like an immature hussy, I do not take it as an attack on all women, or on myself personally. Woman are not all alike; we do not all share the same values or morals.

Cyrus chose to act like a whore on stage. If I were a pop singer, I would not choose to act like a whore on stage.

Some have argued that Cyrus is just trying to shed her old clean, Disney image, and to demonstrate that she is finally an adult now. Guess what?

I was once her age, and I never felt it necessary to demonstrate my sexuality or womanhood by parading around in public in a latex bikini grinding my ass up against some man’s crotch.

I had qualities called “self respect” and “control.” Cyrus apparently lacks both.

Feminists told women of my age, as we were growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, that we should sleep around often, not feel guilty or ashamed of it, and we should do this to demonstrate (to them? to ourselves? to men? to whomever) that we were real women in charge of our own lives.

That secular feminists define being feminist or a “real woman” by having sex or sexuality itself was insulting to me; there is no room in secular feminist thinking for a woman who chooses to remain a virgin, and secular feminist thoughts on these matters are not that different from patriarchal culture that tells women their only value is in performing sexually for men, or making babies.

Secular feminists, not just sexist men or conservative churches, but secular feminists, also conveyed to women of my generation that our main value was in our bodies and sexuality.

Women of my generation were not encouraged by secular feminists to develop our intellect or creative abilities.

We were instructed by secular feminists, though, to get control and power – especially over men, and at that by using our sexuality, sex, and our beauty. And I find that a gross, disgusting, sexist view point, no better than the caveman sexist pigs who judge women solely on a woman’s looks or if she “puts out.”

Secular feminism of the last 30 or so years is really no different from good old fashioned misogyny.

The secular feminists in the 1980s and onwards would dictate to young girls such as myself to take charge of my own life, not to listen to what churches and preachers told me about my body and sexuality, but instead of stopping there, stopping at, “don’t let others make your choices and tell you what you should do,” the feminists of those eras (and still now) would continue to tell me what to do!

Secular feminists would tell me in their books, magazine articles, newspaper clippings and college lectures, that in their opinion, in order for me to be a real woman, I would need to start looking at porn, enjoying porn, have sex before marriage, screw around with as many men (and maybe a few women too).

The secular feminists were just as bossy, domineering, and judgmental about my body and my sexuality as any conservative Christian ever was!

Secular feminists don’t want churches, parents, or Republicans telling women what to do with their bodies or sexuality, but they make fine little dictators… the secular feminists want to tell women what to do with their bodies and sexuality.

Secular feminists would have me trade out one set of bossy, know it all judges – churches, preachers, parents, Republicans – for secular feminists.

No thank you. How about I tune all these sources out and make up my own damn mind and decide what to do for myself?

(Link): ‘Desperate’ Miley slammed: ‘That was messed up’

Christianity Today published this on Aug 28
(Link): Jesus Loves Miley Cyrus

And The Christian Post on Aug 28:
(Link): Forget Miley, What About the “Man” on Stage With Her?

From Aug 28, Christian Post:
(Link): Miley Please Stop

On Aug 29, from The Christian Post:
(Link): Miley Cyrus Twerking What Would Hannah Montana Say?

Aug 29, CP:
(Link): Miley Cyrus at VMA: Can We Stop Pretending to Be Shocked?

From Christian Century, Aug 29:
(Link): Miley and MLK

From Christian Post, Aug 31:
(Link): Miley Cyrus, Hannah Montana and Our Kids

Related Posts This Blog

(Link): Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article) – and related info

(Link): No, Christians do not Idolize Virginity or Celibacy

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

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

(Link): CDC Reports Rare Lesbian HIV Transmission Case

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

Well. Good luck getting any support if you are a Christian who has remained celibate and single into your 30s and older. Churches would rather serve and help strippers, orphans, homeless people and prostitutes than singles.

Note that I am not saying it is wrong for Christians to help strippers, orphans, and so on, only that I condemning them for being very selective in when, where, and to whom they offer help and compassion.

Christians will help a stripper or porn star but not a Christian woman who is a virgin who has remain unmarried into her 40s. There’s something very wrong with Christians showing preferential treatment to some categories of people, such as helping strippers and prostitutes, but not celibate Christian women who are single.

It looks to me as if you want or need community, friendship, support, or help from most churches that you must become a stripper, a whore, or an orphan in Africa, or a homeless bag lady downtown.

It’s so odd that so many Christians are so quick to help people stuck in sexual sin, or who willfully engage in sexual sin, but treat Christians who have remained sexually pure like garbage.

I guess I can go to work as a stripper in Nashville, and then this pastor’s wife will fellowship with me and bring me home-cooked meals:

(Link): Tennessee Pastor’s Wife Begins Ministry for Strippers in Nashville


    August 21, 2013|5:40 pm
    “Strip Church” ministry based out of Nashville, Tenn. began after a pastor’s wife fasted for 21 days in late 2012 for a new purpose, only to learn God was calling her to reach out to strippers and women in the porn industry.

    “I had one clear direction from God, and it was “go feed the strippers.” I had no idea what that meant, but it was pressing so hard on my heart that I had to obey. I realized the homosexual, stripper, child molester, atheist, drug addict, Muslim and abortionist is not the enemy, they are the mission field,” said Stevens to The Christian Post.

    Stevens, who helps her husband, Todd Stevens, lead Friendship Community Church in Mt. Juliet, Tenn., was bewildered but willing to serve so she made her first call to a strip club in downtown Nashville, where according to Stevens, the porn industry market is “huge.” After telling the manager of Déjà Vu that she wanted to go to the club and take food for the dancers with no strings attached, she was surprised that he invited her the following week.

    “She doesn’t spread the gospel at Deja Vu, she just shows the girls love by listening, being attentive, and answering any questions they may have about life or faith,” said John Sanchez, general manager at Déjà Vu, to CP. “The reason she was invited was because she didn’t try to ‘spread the word.””

    During her first visit, Stevens took a home cooked meal to the club and stayed for 45 minutes to hold conversation with the women. There were no “high pressure sales pitch, no Bible and no tracts,” according to Stevens. Now, she goes twice a month for an hour before the night shift begins. In addition, she visits another club in the same area where she “shows God’s love in a practical way.”

    “My vision for the Strip Church ministry is to be able to provide free Christian counseling, free job placement, free GED training or college courses, free childcare, free medical care, and meet benevolence needs the girls may have,” said Stevens.

Related posts this blog:

Follow Up to This Post:

(Link): On The Bright Side

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate

(Link): Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians Re: Marriage

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

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

(Link): Church Gives Shoes to Homeless – Misplaced Priorities – Also: Audacity of Preachers To Shame the Hurting or Victims

(Link): The Bible Says Christians are to Help Other Christians First (not sex trafficked people, not orphans in Africa, not homeless crack addicts, etc)

(Link): Suffering and Misery Trend Du Jour

(Link): Part 2 – Suffering and Misery Trend Du Jour

(Link): You Don’t Need to Look Far To Find Hurting People Who Could Use Your Help and Compassion

New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

My comments about that:

Okay, then, so a lot of married Christians have this false belief that married couples do not engage in sexual sin because they are getting their sexual desires fulfilled by their spouse and are therefore not “burning with lust.”

Meanwhile, it is wrongly assumed by Christian married couples that unmarried Christians are fornicators who sleep around all over the place, even though some are virgins into their 30s, 40s, and older.

Again, say what you will about me, a never married chick over 40, but I am NOT a “swinger.” I don’t participate in casual sex, I never have.

Even when I do start having pre-marital sex, it’s not going to be “hook ups,” not knowingly with married men, not with random guys, nor in the form of casual sex, or on a first date. Even as a single, my sexual standards will remain far higher than those I see of a lot of married Christian couples.

(Un-married Christian women are often viewed with suspicion by married Christian men and women; we are thought of as being sexual temptresses, or as potential husband-stealers, when it’s the married Christian women who are whoring around, cheating with married men, and using “swingers” dating sites)

Married Christians have a hell of a lot of nerve in perpetuating the falsehood that (Christian) singles are all unprincipled horn dogs that hump anyone and anything in sight.

By the way, with all the condescending editorials ((Link): such as this one) telling Christians singles not to marry Unbelievers, how can they justify that in light of the fact that married Christian couples are acting just as, if not more, perverted than Non Christian married couples?

Also by the way, if Christian sex propaganda is right and having sex for the first time when married guarantees for “mind blowing sex” (with your spouse) why are so many married Christian couples dabbling in “swinging,” or using porn, or having affairs? I have documented numerous examples of all this on this blog.

Here’s a dating site for married Christian couples who want to swap marital partners with other married Christian couples:

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

    August 22, 2013|2:59 pm

A new dating website called CHRISTIANSwingers is sending ripples throughout the Christian community for offering “faithful couples” the opportunity to “hookup” with each other. One mental health professional warns the practice will lead to nothing but “pain.”

The oxymoronic website brazenly declares that it was “designed to cater to the needs of those like you: devout Christian couples who still want to have an active love life and share it with another, in good faith!”

Before it details its mission, however, the website attempts to make a connection with visitors by justifying the lifestyle.

“For Christian Swingers things are not easy – often other religious people judge you, out of ignorance or envy, telling you that your lifestyle and love practices are wrong,” begins the opening paragraph of the pitch.

“But the Bible teaches us ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ and there’s that verse about the first stone… but if you’re keen on keeping your privacy, well – yours, and don’t want your friends, coworkers, other PTA members or just about anyone else to know that you don’t have a problem with faith and enjoying free love with other couples, this site can help you!” it boasts.

…But Louise Nielsen, a licensed Christian counselor and mental health professional of At The Crossroads Inc., dismissed the proposal as not only indecent but unbiblical and dangerous.

“Having been to seminary as well as being trained as a licensed mental health counselor, and as a Christian, it is unbiblical, it is sinful,” Nielsen told The Christian Post on Thursday.

“God doesn’t stop loving anyone, but it is not a behavior that is in anyway appropriate for Christians or for anyone else. It’s just not. I feel sad for the people who are involved in it. I have never seen it result in anything but pain in a marriage,” she noted. “It is not something that can be endorsed in a Christian context at all.”

On a Facebook page promoting the concept of Christian swingers, some Christians are also airing their disapproval of the practice.

“Whoa to you sons and daughters of Satan…..many will stand before the Lord and say Lord Lord, did we not do this and that in your name………thou shalt burn in the fires of eternity….No adulterer and no Liar will enter the Kingdom of God,” wrote Peter Clarke on the page.

Related posts this blog:

(Link): Perverted Christian Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): Christian Swingers: Body-building Christian Couple Advocates and Practices Wife Swapping – and the wife calls this lifestyle “pure”

(Link): Married Christians Who Were Arrested for Rape, Attempted Murder, or Other Crimes – more examples

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

(Link): ‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity – Also Maintain A Few Falsehoods

(Link): Married Christian Expert on Child Spirituality Pleads Guilty To Possessing Child Porn

(Link): Author of Marital Self-Help Books Murders Wife

(Link): Married Christian Preacher and Mistress Try to Kill Wife – Married Christians not more stable, mature, or godly than Singles

(Link): Unmarried / Single Women Perceived as Threats – Married Women Won’t Let This Myth Perish

(Link): Cheating Married Christian Women and Lessons I Take Away – and Being a Virgin Does Not Guarantee God will Send You a Spouse

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

(Link): Commentary on the Editorial Entitled – Pastors, We Must Do Better on Premarital Sexual Ethics

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

(Link): More Awful and Crap-tastic Marriage and Sex Advice from Christians – specifically from Ososami and Delzell

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

(Link): Magical Christian Thinking: If you have pre-marital sex you won’t get a decent spouse

(Link): Father Kills His Three Kids (article) – Once more, parenthood and marriage does not prevent sin or failure

(Link): Married Church Pianist Found Guilty of Repeatedly Raping Little Girl Over Four Years

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

Unintentional Comedy Piece: SBC Russell Moore Supposedly Concerned about Erosion of Traditional Christian Values – LOL!

Unintentional Comedy Piece: SBC Russell Moore Supposedly Concerned about Erosion of Traditional Christian Values LOL!

You can read about Mr. Moore’s deep concern of the erosion of traditional, biblical values here:

(Link): ‘The Bible Belt Is Collapsing;’ Christians Have Lost Culture War, Says ERLC President Russell Moore, Christian Post

Thank you for the laugh, Christian Post!


    By Leonardo Blair , CP Reporter
    August 19, 2013|3:50 pm

    President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Russell Moore, says “the Bible Belt is collapsing” and Christians have lost the culture war in America. However, the latest developments in the U.S. just “might be good for the church,” he explained.

    In a (Link): recent report in the Wall Street Journal, Moore conceded that traditional Christian values no longer define mainstream American culture the way they did up-to 20 years ago, but it could be good for the church because “we are no longer the moral majority. We are a prophetic minority,” he said.

    He explained that mainstream culture has moved away from traditional views on issues like gay marriage, abortion and even “basic religious affiliation,” and the church now needs a new approach to attract and retain believers and influence politics.

    “This is the end of ‘slouching toward Gomorrah,'” he said. “We were never promised that the culture would embrace us.”

    … Moore is looking instead, to direct the evangelical movement to serve as religious examples on life, marriage and religious liberty.
    Christians, said Moore, are losing the debate on gay marriage because they don’t have a real understanding of marriage and they operate under the premise that “my marriage is my business.”

    “We have embraced certain aspects of the sexual revolution,” said Moore, like the “divorce culture.”

So. He’s upset America is in support of abortion (actually, polls I’ve seen the last few years say more Americans now are opposed to it), homosexuality – but I would assume he is peachy keen with unmarried people having sex before marriage, see this:
(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

He’s such a hypocrite. 😆 He’s fine with hetero singles having pre marital sex, but takes issue with homosexuals having sex (some other Christians get this backwards though, see links below).

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

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

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

(Link): Republicans Ditch Family Values As Strategy (article)

(Link): The Church / Christians Have Failed Are Failing Older Single / Never Married Christians

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

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

Dr. Miriam Grossman discusses the history of sex ed in schools. (radio show)

Dr. Miriam Grossman discusses the history of sex ed in schools

About the half way mark of the audio, Mefferd mentions that in today’s sleazy, easy, sex culture, the only thing considered sexually abnormal is being a virgin until you are married – I agree with her on that.

I have met a very small number of Non Christians (who I became friends with) who are honestly respectful of the fact I am a virgin into my 40s due to personal convictions, but by and large, most people, Christian and Non, act like 40- year- old- virgins are weird, losers, freaks, abnormal, or losers.

Even churches, preachers, and other Christians do not generally support virginity in older Christians/ Non Christians. They too will act like you are a weirdo freak, they act like God approves only of marriage, sex, and reproducing.

Online radio show where you can hear Mefferd’s comments:
(Link): Hour 1- Dr. Miriam Grossman discusses the history of sex ed in schools.
Related posts, this blog

(Link): NOTICE and WARNING: On Vulgar Language at This Blog

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

(Link): On the Janet Mefferd Radio Show: Still Too Much Concern About ‘Family’

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

(Link): Are Christians Tossing Out Prohibitions Against Pre Martial Sex (radio show)

Was Benny Hinn’s Brother Restored to Ministry Too Soon After Affair? (article)

Was Benny Hinn’s Brother Restored to Ministry Too Soon After Affair?

(Link): Was Benny Hinn’s Brother Restored to Ministry Too Soon After Affair?

I notice how a lot of conservative Christians pay lip service to how much they value sexual purity and virginity but really do not (see (Link): this post or (Link): this one or (Link): this one), but seem mighty flexible when it comes to sexual sins.

If you’re a married preacher and have an affair, those Christians who claim to uphold virginity until marriage cannot wait to get you back in the pulpit.

I have a question about this too.

If Christian sex propaganda were correct, and marital sex was truly “mind blowing,” as they often claim it is, why are these adulterous married preachers not sexually satisfied with their wives alone? Why do they seek out a mistress, porn sites, or paid prostitutes?

If married sex were so awesomely awesome, they would be having sex with their wife only and not screwing around on her.

Was Benny Hinn’s Brother Restored to Ministry Too Soon After Affair? Excerpts:

    Most leaders agree: pastors can return to pulpits after adultery. But they disagree on how long it should take.

    How soon is too soon for a pastor to return to the pulpit after ‘fessing up to an affair? Apparently no more than eight months, if you’re the brother of prominent televangelist Benny Hinn.

    The Orlando Sentinel reports that Sam Hinn, who admitted to a four-year extramarital affair in January, is already back in ministry. The younger Hinn completed a restoration process and was “re-ordained” Sunday at Orlando-area Church on the Living Edge, just eight months after he resigned from his position at Gathering Place Worship Center in Sanford, Florida.

    In addition, Sunday’s ceremony indicated that Hinn would be installed as a professor at Tabernacle Bible College Seminary in Tampa.
    But not everyone is happy about Sam Hinn’s restoration to the pulpit. Ron Johnson, a local pastor who counseled Sam Hinn, told the Sentinel that Hinn “walked out on a two-year restoration process after three months—leaving many of his problems unresolved.”

    Similarly, Johnson wrote in an op-ed for Charisma that he “outlined a two-year plan of restoration and walked through the initial stages with him. … Sam wanted to renegotiate the terms. When I wouldn’t agree to that, he withdrew from my covering and has since found a group of men willing to endorse his leadership in a more expeditious manner.”

    … Sam Hinn isn’t the only pastor to commit adultery (three other Orlando pastors (Link): did the same recently) and be restored to ministry as of late. Jim Bolin, founding pastor of Trinity Chapel Church of God in Powder Springs, Georgia, waited five years before returning to ministry—but unlike others, he was (Link): restored to his position at the church he founded.

    Meanwhile, megachuch pastor Dino Rizzo has also returned to the pulpit at The Church of the Highlands in Birmingham, Alabama, barely a year after resigning as senior pastor of Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    According to, “Overseers of Healing Place Church devised a restoration plan, 31 items long, which required counseling for Rizzo and his wife, Delynn,” but Rizzo left the church and sought employment elsewhere.

    CT previously has reported that the vast majority of National Association of Evangelical (NAE) board members say pastors can be restored to church roles after marital infidelity. The highest-profile case study: Ted Haggard, former NAE president and New Life Church pastor

Yeah, where the rubber hits the road, American Christendom is not supportive of biblical sexual ethics.
Related posts this blog

(Link): And Will He Be Giving Sermons on Sexual Purity? Re: Church Restores Pastor Removed for Adultery

(Link): Married Christian Preacher and Mistress Try to Kill Wife – Married Christians not more stable, mature, or godly than Singles

(Link): Married Christian Expert on Child Spirituality Pleads Guilty To Possessing Child Porn

(Link): Married Christians Who Were Arrested for Rape, Attempted Murder, or Other Crimes – more examples

Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article) – and related info

Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article)

(Link): Promoting a biblical sexual ethic

This is from 1994 and mentions “True Love Waits” – and if you are early 40s like me, it waits and waits and waits and waits some more
(Link): Staking their lives on it Christian teens take their message of chastity and virtue to a mocking city

(Link): Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article)


    It’s hard being one of the few not ‘doing it’

    … I’m a 25-year-old Christian virgin squirming in a secular world where sex is both ordinary and essential. Even though asking about virginity is considered intrusive, the unspoken understanding is that everybody has already “done it.” Even Christians.

    I’m not the only Christian young woman living in a hypersexualized culture. And it’s not just non-Christians who “hook up” regularly. It’s the Christians too—even those we would deem “strong believers.”

    … Well, for one, Christians typically have to deal with the aftermath of guilt and shame.

    … Yet others, while struggling with initial guilt, eventually learn to desensitize themselves from it. Mary, 23, told me she lost her virginity when she was 18 to her first boyfriend. The first time left her “crying a lot” because of the guilt.

    But that didn’t stop her from continuing to have sex, and “the crying and the guilt has slowly vanished over the years,” she said. She doesn’t “lose sleep over it” anymore.

    In fact, given today’s sexual landscape, she’s pretty sure her future husband will have been even more promiscuous than her––so who is he to judge? He must accept her wholly, hookup record and all.

    Another Christian friend, Kim, told me she doesn’t think premarital sex is any graver than other sins because we are all sinners: “People make it a bigger deal than it really is,” she said. She then leafed through Bible verses, pointing out that the Scriptures never clearly define a stance on premarital sex. Yes, the Apostle Paul urged the faithful to flee “fornication” and “sexual immorality,” but what does that mean, exactly? And what gives Christians the right to condemn other people?

    “To focus so much on the behavior and using that to define somebody’s relationship with God is legalism,” Kim said. “I think the heart is most important. Who of us doesn’t sin? It doesn’t help anybody to dwell in guilt over something that is already lost.”

(Link): Read the Rest
Related posts this blog:

(Link): No, Christians do not Idolize Virginity or Celibacy

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

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

Christians and Cheap Grace Concerning Sexual Sin

Christians and Cheap Grace Concerning Sexual Sin

(Link): Carlos Danger and Cheap Grace: No Road to Respectability

That editorial approaches sexual sin they way I think of it, if approaching it from a Christian context.

I’m a little tired of Christians who are so hyper sensitive to the feelings of fornicators or sexual abuse victims that they have started to teach that Christians should ignore or downplay the Bible’s teachings about virginity until marriage (which is a form of sexual purity – which I mention because a lunk head at another blog said the two are separate issues altogether).

(Disclaimer: consensual sexual sin and sexual abuse (and rape) are two separate categories. I do not hold victims of rape or sexual abuse responsible for having been violated; never the less, it is incorrect for anyone to want to neglect the Bible’s standards on sexuality, or to say such standards do not matter, all to spare the feelings of anyone who may have been either sexually abused or guilty of consensual sex.)

It’s all well and good to tell people God will forgive them of sexual sin (and again, I’m talking about consensual sexual acts), but the end result of all this hyper-leniency in regards to sexual sin is to pretty much abandon any expectation or defense of biblical standards of virginity and related matters. Which in turn is a big insult to Christians who have literally walked the walk and have not caved in to sexual temptation and who remain virgins into their 30s and older.

Excerpts from Carlos Danger and Cheap Grace: No Road to Respectability

      By Eric Metaxas, Christian Post Contributor


    August 2, 2013|10:01 am

As I record this, former congressman Anthony Weiner is staying in the race for mayor of New York. In case you forgot, he’s the one who resigned in 2011 after sexually suggestive tweets he sent to virtual strangers became public.
He’s staying in the race, despite reports of serial sexting under the nom de thumb “Carlos Danger.” He joins disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer, who is running for comptroller, on the ballot.

It isn’t only New York: recently, South Carolina voters returned Mark Sanford, who ruined the phrase “hiking the Appalachian Trail” for the rest of us, to Congress.

These and other instances of politicians “falling from grace” and then being restored to a measure of respectability, are usually explained by the statement “Americans are a forgiving lot.”

As a Christian, I am all for forgiveness, as I’m sure you are. But what’s on display in these instances isn’t so much an example of forgiveness as it is of “cheap grace.”

That’s how David French put it at National Review. The expression “cheap grace” comes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “Cost of Discipleship.” “Cheap grace,” Bonhoeffer wrote, “is the grace we bestow on ourselves [and] the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance.” Ultimately, it is “grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

As French pointed out, “the pattern is familiar and depressing: Public stumble, public apology, public rebirth-and then the next public stumble follows with depressing frequency.” Some politicians “opt out of scandal” by “marrying their mistresses and prancing in front of cameras with their latest adoring spouse,” but the end result is the same: a parody of forgiveness and grace that makes the real thing increasingly unrecognizable.
I agree with French that the allure of “cheap grace” is easy to understand. “We want to close the worst chapters of our lives as quickly as possible and just get on with living on the same trajectory as before, minus the embarrassment.”

But grace and true forgiveness are supposed to alter the trajectory of our lives, not preserve it. They are supposed to make us better as well as wiser.

(Link): Click here to read the rest
Related posts this blog.

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

(Link): No, Christians Do Not Idolize Virginity or Sexual Purity Nor Are They Prideful About It

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

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

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

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

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

(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): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): Preachers Who Use Strippers, Hula Girls, Topless Hunky Men, and Strip Poles During Church Services and Give Sex Diplomas to Teens – Yes, Really

‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity – Also Maintain A Few Falsehoods

‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity

This is reminiscient of Challies’ dismal editorial on virginity as well as Moore’s (see (Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies and (Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner) .

The author, Fileta, brings up the “pride” issue again, as did Moore in his anti- virginity hit piece.

My good lord, Christians tell you when you’re a teen to be a virgin until marriage, to assume God will send you a virgin, and so, when you arrive in your 30s (or older) and are still a virgin, you then get scolded for being upset that your partner is not a virgin as well.

Notice that someone (“Rachel”) pipes up in the comments to say, ‘what about those who have been sexually abused or raped.’ How I wish people would stop trying to muddy the issue: when talking about virginity and sexual purity, the topic under consideration is always consensual sex, not sexual abuse or rape.

This same online magazine has editorials on related issues; please see those links below this one with the excerpts:

(Link): “But He (or She) Isn’t a Virgin” Sexual history isn’t everything. Here’s how to pursue purity together as a couple.


    By Debra K Fileta
    January 11, 2012

    …Our sexual past is a symptom of who we were, and is not necessarily a reflection of who we are.

    … I have seen countless young people pass up potentially solid relationships because of the fact that they could not get over the idea of marrying a “non-virgin.” On the opposite spectrum, I have seen entire relationships founded on the basis of mutual sexual purity, when there were so many other major dysfunctions in the relationship that were overlooked and simply dimmed in comparison to the spotlight of “purity.” Our tendency to get hung up on the details can be devastating.

    Beyond the scope of sexual past, one must consider who a person is in their present. We serve a God of grace and mercy, a God who uproots us from our old selfish life and plants us into the soil of holiness and righteousness. For those who are in a true relationship with Jesus, sexual past can no longer be the defining point of their lives. They are now defined by their relationship with Jesus Christ…

    Purity is a condition of the heart, of the mind and of the spirit more than a simple category of one’s physical experiences.

    Our inability to forgive our partner’s sexual past (or our own) may be a sign of a heart issue that has nothing to do with sexuality. I once heard it said that someone who cannot forgive themselves for their past is not struggling with the sin of guilt, but with the sin of pride. Pride is the voice that tells us that what has been done is too great of a sin to be covered by God’s grace.

    If you find yourself stuck on your partner’s sexual past, you must ask yourself if you have really accepted and understood God’s grace in your own life. Like the story of the unforgiving servant who had an enormous debt wiped out, yet could not manage to forgive the debt of his own servant (Matthew 18). Though your past may look different than the past of your partner, God’s grace has covered you both. If you cannot learn to love your partner by covering them in grace, then purity of body has taken priority over purity of heart. If I remember correctly, Jesus always looks at the heart (John 8:1-11).

    Our sexual history will always affect us, though it doesn’t always have to haunt us. I don’t want to make it sound like those who have had a sexual past will be dismissed of all consequences, because that is simply untrue. Ask any Christ-centered married couple in which one or both partners have dabbled sexually outside of marriage and they will be able to point to the consequences of that behavior. We who have purposely and deliberately awakened our sexual desires to any extent before marriage will bring an additional component to matrimony that will undoubtedly be added to the list of “things to work through.” That said, anyone who enters into marriage brings their own list of things to work through, whether it be a sexual past, family problems, past sins, spending habits, communication deficits and on and on and on … Who of us is perfect when it comes to purity of the mind, body and soul?

    [click the link at top if you wish to read the entire thing]

    Debra K. Fileta is a Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in Relationship and Marital issues. She, her husband and two children live in Hershey, PA. She is the author of the new book True Love Dates (Zondervan, 2013)

–Also From Relevant Magazine–

(Link): Second Chance Virginity
-what have I (Link): said before about Christians employing these feel good euphemisms for fornicators?

(Link): Virginity Is Not The Point

(Link): The Secret Sexual Revolution A recent study reveals most single Christians are having sex. We undress why.

Excerpt that page:

    Abstinence messages have often been geared toward teenagers, but as the average marrying age creeps closer to 30, the time period when Christians are called to be chaste can easily extend a decade beyond their high school graduation—or much longer. So what does abstinence look like as Christians “grow up” and enter the real world but are still single?

    “Itʼs absolutely not realistic,” McKnight continues. “But itʼs also not realistic not to do a lot of things, and that doesnʼt mean the Bible doesnʼt tell us the ideal and design of God is to not have premarital sex.”

    …McKnight also wonders if part of the problem is a devaluing of marriage. If young Christians no longer deem marriage a worthwhile endeavor…

Notice the false assumption there that if only we get ’em married young, this fornication problem will go away. See (Link): A Case Against Early Marriage by A. Moore (editorial)

By the way, the problem (in churches) is not that marriage is devalued but the complete opposite: it’s turned into an idol, and any unmarried seeking it for himself is, hypocritically, told to stop immediately, for he is “making marriage into an idol, so be content in your singleness.”

(Link): Unmarried and Not A Virgin Now What?

Excerpt that page:

    If you’ve followed RELEVANT articles in the past few months, you’ve noticed that a huge amount of unmarried, born-again, Christian young men and women are having a really hard time saying “no.” In fact, if you’re reading this article … there’s an 80 percent chance you are one of them.

    We were never intended to say no to sex, because it is one of God’s most precious and valuable gifts to us as human beings.

What the hell is up with this: ‘we were never intended to say no to sex?’ The Bible says oh yes we are. See: (Link): Why So Much Fornication (sex outside of marriage) – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity
Here is Relevant Magazine’s section on Singles:

(Link): Singles tag category, Relevant Magazine

Just glancing at the headlines under that section, this one made me cringe, as it is a CLICHE’ I hear from married people all the time; as someone who was engaged to be married for several years, I already know that a serious romantic relationship is not a cure-all:

“Marriage Doesn’t Solve Your Problems”

Some of you may find this helpful (but read disclaimer below):
(Link): Five Things About Dating I Wish I Had Known

-its author corrects a few of the more idiotic Christian dating tips most of us have been subjected to in the past..
Except for the bit where she talks about how your friendsships should, must, or will change with your opposite gender friends once you marry – which I think is a crock, because it feeds back into the stereotype that marrieds cannot be friends with a single, lest a raging affair start, because un-marrieds are unprincipled horn dogs who are just dying to have sex with married people.
Related posts, this blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With virginity and celibacy under regular attack from much of Non Christian culture, such as with recent books such as ‘The Purity Myth,’ by Jessica Valenti (I assume she is a Non Christian, though I may be wrong; but certainly, and by one method of several, by using most Hollywood movies as a barometer to judge Non Christian feelings about the topics, as most films do not depict flattering portrayals of virgins or virginity, so I take it the average Non Christian may think virginity is strange or bad), one would expect Christians would want to jump to defend the concepts, but, in the last few years, they’ve been among the very first in line to say, and to cave in and join the Non Christian anti-virginity chorus saying, such teachings are “dangerous” to women, while some say they are “hurtful.”

While I agree with Valenti’s presmise that culture (and this would include Christian culture) can or does twist virginity to such a degree that women are judged only in terms of their sexuality, and this is not good, I do not agree with others (I’m not sure of Valenti’s position specifically) that teachings about sexual purity should be abandoned altogether – if one chooses to be a Bible-believing Christian, I should say.

I myself am on the verge of becoming agnostic after years of having been a conservative Christian. Despite this, I tend to view these debates about sex, modesty teachings, celibacy and virginity through a biblical lens, especially if a Christian is discussing these topics, or if the arguments apparently conflict with the Bible. (At other times, I do waffle and view them from an agnostic position.)

If one is going to be a Christian, I see no room for disputing that the Bible says that women -and men- are called to remain virgins until marriage.

If you are a Christian who is having sex outside of marriage, that is your choice, but do not try to defend that choice -and I have, yes, seen self- professing Christians use all the following rationaliztions – by saying things such as: the Bible supports fornication;
or the Bible is too vague for us to know for sure what God thinks about pre-marital sex, so let us overlook it; or,
other Christians (these are usually liberals or emergents) insist that that the biblical teachings about sexual purity should be ignored because they sometimes hurt the feelings of fornicators, rape victims, or child sexual abuse victims.

It should go without saying that of course rape victims and child sexual abuse victims are not to blame for having been violated.

That sexual abuse victims unfortunately feel uncomfortable by virginity teachings or sexual purity teachings is less evidence that such teachings are erroneous or cruel in and of themselves, and perhaps more of an indicator that the conveyors of such teachings, such as church youth pastors, may be framing the discussions in an unnecessarily hurtful or condescending manner (by comparing fornicators to used chewing gum, for instance, which yes, I grant, may be insulting).

However, that some Christian youth speakers or pulpit-pounding, legalistic preachers tend to convey sex sermons and teachings in an unloving manner does not change the fact that the Bible supports virginity- until- marriage, celibacy, and chastity.

There are some Christians, who dispute the use of the terms “fornication” and “fornicator” when discussing sexual topics, as they feel it is insulting to people who have in the past fornicated, or who currently fornicate. I use these terms only for breveity’s sake. They are not intended by me to be derogatory.

It’s a hell of a lot easier to type out the word “fornicator,” than the long, meandering description, “one who has sex outside of / before marriage.”

Strangely, nobody, not even most Christians who dispute the use of the word “fornicate,” seem to mind the weird, and not- mentioned- in- the- Bible, trend lately where Christian fornicators get to call themselves “born again virgins,” “spiritual virgins,” or “secondary virgins,” if only they promise in public to have repented of their sexual shenanigans. Why the double standards on terminlogy?

Christians are calling for other Christians, including those who have actually remained virgins into their adulthood, to tip toe around the sensitive feelings of those who have fornicated, yet those pushing this insane agenda do not care at all that their downgrading of the importance of virginity and celibacy is not only insulting and hurtful to actual virgins, but that it removes any remaining impetus for us to remain chaste any longer.

And I note a tad of hypocrisy on display: many of the Christians asking adult virgin Christians to be more tolerant and understanding of rampant sexual sin and who implore adult virgins not to take virginity so seriously, sometimes end their blog postings with the end notes reading thusly: “author John. W. Smith; married 20 years, father of three,” or, “Mary Jones, phD in literature, married eight years, mother of two.” They are not virgins themselves but feel fine lecturing virgins.

Here I have carried out the “be a virgin because you’re not married” biblical mandate, and I’m over the age of 40, yet these buffoons, these Christian bloggers who are getting their sexual and companionship needs consistently satisfied, are presuming to dress me, or those like me, down? I don’t think so.

Separate from your spouse for the next twenty five years, live alone, give up all sex and contact, then, and only then, write a blog post about all this, please… and then let’s see what your position is on the topic. I have a sneaking suspicion your views will have shifted at least a tad.

Christians, even preachers and Christian professional authors and bloggers, are now showing far more concern over the feelings and considerations of sexual sinners, helping them getting their needs met, and offering them encouragement and a sense of community, than they are in helping or supporting adult Christians who are sexually abstaining, and who are actually following the Bible’s teachings on sexual mores. This is a disgusting double standard and very upside down.

To add further insult to injury, and diminish virginity even more, adult virgins such as myself, or author Julia Duin, who point out the hypocrisy, the lack of support for the truly celibate single, and the sexual failings of the Christian culture, are chided, insulted, and reprimanded by preachers and professional Christian authors in their blogs, magazines, and editorials over this.

I never thought I would see the day, but this kind of attack on virginity – and by Christians – is becoming a horrifying, regular occurence in American Christendom.

Adult Christian virgins get scolded and chided – by (married authors- that is, ‘having sex occasionally authors,’ I should add again) Christians, no less, and it’s mind boggling – for defending the very biblical standard of ‘virginity- unti- marriage,’ to be told that we are not loving, we are prideful, and we also get these nauseating, non-sensical, sappy, maudlin comments, courtesy Christian Tim Challies, such as, “we are all virgins now.” (More on that farther below.)

Per the last point on the list: not all guilt is a bad thing, according to the Bible. Christians are supposed to feel convicted for any sin they commit, which usually translates as feelings of guilt. There is such a thing as “false” guilt, to be sure – but in so far that the Bible teaches that pre-marital sex is wrong, if you do not feel the least bit guilty for having engaged in that particular sin, and yet you claim to be a Christian, there might be something wrong with your conversion experience, or your fidelty to Biblical teachings.

This is not to say that anyone guilty of any sin should spend years wallowing in hatred of self or in self-unforgiveness, but the attitude I pick up in contemporary Christian views about sexual sin on blogs and in some books is to dismiss it out of hand, especially because teachings of sexual purity makes people feel ashamed or guilty, which is not, in my view, biblical.

Turning attention to Challies’ anti- virginity post. Notice like in Moore’s anti-virginity posting, Challies also offers the obligatory “I support celibacy and virginity” commentary, but then spends the rest of the discussion nullifying those sentiments. Here are excerpts (his editorial is hosted on his own blog, and at Christian Post):

(Link 1): We Are All Virgins Now, by Tim Challies (on Challies’ Blog)

(Link 2): We Are All Virgins Now, by Tim Challies (on CP)

These are excperts. If you wish to read the Challies post in its entirety, please click one of the links above.

[by Tim Challies]

  • We Evangelicals are known for our obsession with virginity. Now don’t get me wrong—I affirm that it is good and God-honoring to remain sexually pure before marriage (and within marriage and after marriage). As a pastor I want to teach the people in my care the value of having their first sexual experiences with their spouse in the marriage bed and not with a prom date in the back of a car. I want my children to value sexual purity and to understand that lust is not love, that love expresses itself in self-control. Virginity matters because sexual purity matters because God says it matters. But it is not the highest of virtues. It is not the measure of a godly young man or young woman. It is not the goal and the measure of Christian living.
  • This Evangelical obsession with virginity manifests itself in youth conferences where a flower is passed around a room, going from hand to hand, until the speaker can hold it up, all bent and twisted, and ask with a knowing grin, “Who would want a rose like this?” The teens look and say, “I would never want a rose like that.” But then there are the few who silently look away and weep because they are that rose. They learn they have been spoiled, that their beauty has been given away. (As Matt Chandler reminds us, Jesus wants the rose!)
  • … It is painful to those who were raised in ignorance of what God commands, who simply acted the way unbelievers will act as they committed sexual sin. 
  • … It is particularly painful to those whose virginity was taken from them, who were unwilling participants in abuse or rape. They may feel spoiled
  • This whole obsession with virginity misses one New Testament key, the gospel key…
  • …Paul tells us that in God’s eyes we are all holy. Through Christ we are all redeemed, all forgiven, all made new, all unspoiled. In Christ we are all virgins.

Here I will address a few of Challies’ specific comments (I have dealt with some of his other points in other posts at my blog, and I do not wish to rehash them all here and now; please see my previous posts); Challies wrote:

  • This obsession with virginity….

The only Christians “obsessing” about virginity the past few years, are youth preachers at youth rallies, and those Christians who are not virgins: the fornicators themselves and the married (who are presumably having sex regularly with their spouses). They are the ones writing these types of editorials besmirching virgins and virginity, or seeking to have both diminished.

I’ve yet to see an adult Christian virgin past the age of 35 write one of these attacks on celibacy and virginity, or asking for untold amounts of lovey, sugary, sprinkles sprinkled with an extra dash of understanding atop the sexual sin ice cream cone.

Challies wrote,

  • Not only that, but this obsession causes such pain. Elevating virginity to the first place among the virtues…

And knocking virginity down the totem pole a few notches to soothe the hurt feelings of sexual sinners is the approach you think the Christian community should take? Keep robbing older virgins of a reason to stay pure, by all means.

Challies wrote,

  • It is painful to those who were raised in ignorance of what God commands, who simply acted the way unbelievers will act as they committed sexual sin. …

As I have discussed before on my blog (please use the drop down menu and look for the tag “married people sexual sin”to find examples), I have seen countless testimonies in Christian magazines, blogs, and television programs of married Christian people who say they were committed Christians and that they knew adultery and pornography was wrong, but who engage in both types of sexual sin anyway.

I have also blogged about Christians who say that while single, they knew that fornication was a sin, yet who say they fornicated anyway, and some went so far as to also work in strip clubs, work for X- rated movie productions, and work as prostitutes. Not all Christians who sexually sin are acting out of “ignorance.” Please do not insult my intelligence on this point.

Given the immense amount of sexual purity lectures Christian young people get from Christian sources while they are teens and early 20- something, it is inconceivable to me how anyone in this day and age can grow up as a Christian, hit their mid twenties or older, and not realize that the Bible instructs a person to save sexual activity for marriage.

The young ‘uns get bombarded with sexual purity lectures from the church as kids (at least this was true of many evangelical and Baptist churches in the 1980s and 1990s – as of the last few years, it has become unfashionable for seeker friendly and other types of churches to actually confront sexual sin). When you remain a Christian virgin into your late 20s and older, the church drops the topic of celibacy, virginity, and sexual purity.

There are no support groups, no regularly issued literature (such as magazines) for adult Christian virgins past the age of 25. That Challies can claim that most, or all, of the Christians fornicating ‘out of ignorance’ is laughable and implausible. Christian teens hear about sexual purity quite often; the only sex talk adults get from the church is: “Remember, married women, husbands like sex, so perform sexually all the time!”

Challies wrote,

  • God does not look upon his people as non-virgins and virgins, spoiled and unspoiled, defiled and undefiled. He does not see two classes of people: those who have waited to experience sex within marriage and those have not…. In Christ we are all virgins.

Aw, that sounds so sweet, but it makes my former choice to remain a virgin until marriage very moot. I tell you what, as soon as I get a boyfriend after I move the next year or two, and we start having pre-marital sex, I’ll just go back and re-read those last lines.

Apparently, the phrases and words, “non-virgins,” “virgins,” “defiled,” and “undefiled” and so on, have no meaning. God does not differentiate on those terms, neither should we. I was brought up that every single last word of the Bible, in so far as it has been accurately translated, of course, was there for a reason, that the Holy Spirit put great thought for each and every word and verse, and it’s there for a reason. Now Challies is saying not so.

It’s all fine and dandy to remind sexual sinners that God is loving and forgiving, but really, do Christians have to do so at the expense of running virginity, and actual virgins, down in the process?

I guess if you want to be one of the popular cool kids like the emergents, the popular thing to do these days is bad mouth virginity.

A visitor to Challies’ blog thinks Christians should use the term or concept “recovered virginity.”

Why do Christians keep inventing these bogus terms to re-state or sugar coat the term “sexual sin” or “sexual sinner?” Your good, old- fashioned virgin bristles at mis-use of the term “virgin” to ease guilty consciences of sexual sinners. If you have sexually sinned, God will forgive you, but you are in no way, shape, or form a “virgin,” not even in a spiritual-allegorical sense, I am oh- so- sorry to say.

It is editorials like this one about virginity by Challies (and the previous one by Moore), among other reasons I have, that has been driving me away from the Christian faith and into the arms of agnosticism. The things I was taught to believe from childhood onwards about God, the Bible, Jesus, sex, and marriage are all dismissed by Christians today as though they mean nothing, or as though those beliefs were wrong the whole time.

Congratulations, Challies, for being yet another step in the staircase leading me farther away from God and away from any previously held notions about reserving sex for marriage.

Doesn’t the Bible say that teachers will be held more accountable by God than regular joe’s like me, due to the fact that some of their teachings would cause some to stray or fall away?
Related posts, this blog:

(Link):  Christians Want to Hold Adulterers Accountable but Give Adult Single Fornicators a Pass

(Link): Conservatives Have Now Abandoned All Pretense of Advocating For Sexual Abstinence and They Actually Lament the Lack of Fornication – The Bradford Wilcox Piece, 2019

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

(Link): Stacie Tchividjian Attempting to Turn Repeated Sexual Sin Into a Virtue of Sorts

(Link):  Tim Challies, Who Is Fine With Single Adults Fornicating, Is Not Okay With Fake Sex on TV, As Portrayed by Married Actors

(Link): Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

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

(Link):  An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

(Link):  CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

(Link): A Day In The Life Of An Abstinence Ed Teacher by S. Gomez

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity (they attack both concepts)

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

(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): Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate

(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)

(Link): CDC Reports Rare Lesbian HIV Transmission Case

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites * Irony Alert *

Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites

Editorial hosted on two sites:

(Link 1): AROUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH Porn Is Ravaging Our Churches by Russell D Moore

A copy is here:
(Link 2): What’s At Stake With Internet Pornography, by Russell D Moore

The timing of this Moore editorial appearing today is pretty funny, considering I just did this post about two or three days ago:

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

I’m trying to reconcile how a guy (Moore) who makes light of virginity and sexual purity can write an editorial making a big to-do out of people who have web porn addictions. (He depicts the typical porn addict as male, when, as I’ve cited in previous posts, it’s on the rise among women.)

Before I provide you with excerpts from Moore’s anti web porn editorial (you will have to use the links above if you wish to read the entire editorial), I wanted to quote from this page about a Christian demonologist.

You may ask yourself, “What does demonology have to do with internet pornography?”

Not a lot, I guess, but that’s not my point.

A Christian can sit there and be, let’s say, 90% biblical on their view points, and insist they are totally biblical in their views on Topic X, but when you look at their views on 10% of other stuff, their 10% nullifies the 90%, or their screwy 10% cancels out their claim to be biblical on Topic X.

Here’s an example:

    Some of what Larson [the demonologist] has to say about demonology is biblically based and has likely been of help to those searching for sound teaching on the subject. For this he is to be commended.

    For example, Larson teaches that demons are fallen angels,18 possessed of all the attributes of personal beings, including will, emotion, and intellect.19

    As fallen angels, Larson correctly notes, “demons are noncorporeal spirits,”20 that is, they are immaterial creatures with no extension in space,21 possessing no mass.22

    To his credit, Larson explodes the myth that Satan is the infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent counterpart of God. In no uncertain terms, Larson affirms that Satan is finite,23 unable to forcibly coerce individuals to sin against their will,24 and limited to operating in one place at one time.25

    While these teachings are certainly biblical, Larson nullifies them when he recounts his personal experiences with alleged demons. This penchant for inconsistency is evident throughout Larson’s teaching, and it is common for him to espouse both sound and sensationalistic statements on the same topic.

    For instance, while Larson rightly asserts that demons are noncorporeal beings, he also teaches they manifest themselves physically.26

    According to Larson, most of these occurrences border on nuisance, such as when demons have crank-called those to whom Bob was ministering deliverance;27 yet Larson believes some crafty demons have gone so far as to duplicate his own physical appearance, masquerading as Larson himself in order to obstruct genuine exorcisms.28

    Source: (Link): An Examination of the Teachings of Bob Larson

Here is my point. As Bob Larson is to spiritual warfare/ demonology, Russell D. Moore is to virginity/sexual purity and sexual sin.

It’s fine to say on the one hand that fornication is condemned in the Bible, but to also chastise a Christian virgin for being upset her sweetie pie may not also be one, shows a level of disdain or disrespect for the biblical standard of sexual purity.

You cannot be all that terribly committed to sexual purity if you scold a virginal woman for being upset her honey pie may not also be a virgin when they marry.

You can say you support virginity until the cows come home, but I’m not going to be completely convinced when you then turn around the next moment and tell a virgin who is disappointed her boyfriend is not one that she is idolizing virginity, or is “being prideful,” or should just let it go (if he “repented”), because “we’re all sinners.”

Here are selected quotes from the Moore anti porn editorial – it is also troubling that he reads too much into the “married couples and married sex is an analogy to the church’s relationship to God” view:

    Porn Is Ravaging Our Churches
    by Russell D Moore

    …Beyond that is an even greater mystery still. The Apostle Paul tells us that human sexuality is not arbitrary, nor is it merely natural.

    It is, he reveals, itself an icon of God’s ultimate purpose in the gospel.

    The one-flesh union is a sign of the union between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:22–33). If human sexuality is patterned after the very Alpha and Omega of the cosmos, no wonder it is so difficult to restrain. No wonder it seems so wild.

    …We agree with those-often even secular feminists with whom we disagree on much-who say that a pornographic culture hurts women and children through the objectification of women, the trafficking of children, and the commodification of sex.

    ..Sham Repentance

    This means that our churches cannot simply rely on accountability groups and blocking software to combat this scourge. We must see this as darkly spiritual and, first and foremost, reclaim a Christian vision of human sexuality.

    ..But it [sex] is also intended to bring about new life. An incarnational picture of sexuality, rooted in the mystery of the gospel, is the furthest thing possible from the utilitarian ugliness of pornography.

    …Moreover, we must call for repentance in our own churches, and this will be more difficult than it sounds. Pornography brings with it a kind of sham repentance.

    … Typically, for those who identify as Christians, a pornographic episode is followed by a resolve “never to do it again.” Often these (again, typically) men promise to seek out some sort of accountability and leave it behind.

    But often this resolve is less about a convicted conscience than about a sated appetite.

    …Without genuine repentance, the cycle of temptation will grind on.

    Genuine Repentance

    Our churches must show what genuine repentance looks like.

    For some especially vulnerable members of our churches, this will mean giving up the use of home computers or of Internet technology altogether.

    … We must also empower women in our congregations to grapple as Christians with husbands enslaved to pornography. We believe, and have taught emphatically, that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:23). But, in Scripture and in Christian teaching, all submission (except to the Lord directly) has limits.

    The husband’s body, the Bible says, belongs to his wife (1 Cor. 7:4). She need not subject herself to being the physical outlet for her husband’s pornographically supplied fantasies.

I agreed with a few points he made, but not all.

I would like to remind anyone reading this: this editorial is yet another example that Christian married people are sexual sinners.

Churches usually regard singles as sexual sinners, but married people look at pornography and engage in other types of sexual sin.

Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts

Single Adults Why They Stay and Why They Stray (from church) Book Excerpts

Note: several questionable people have roles in this book, in the form of editing, or as contributors, such as…

    – a gender complementarian, Wayne Grudem; gender complementarianism (Link):

is not biblical

    -neither is “biblical counseling,” yet Edward T. Welch, who is a “biblical counselor” also had some kind of role in this book,
    – C. J. Mahaney – accused of being involved in a ten year cover up of child sexual abuse at his churches,

so I offer this link with a caveat.

The author of the particular chapter I am quoting seems okay, and I don’t see too much that I disagree with in his chapter.

What is really funny is that this book (I’m not sure when it was published, I am just now finding it today), echoes many of the things I’ve said on this blog before.

Edit: this book was published in 2003, but this is the first I am seeing it, or reading excerpts from it. It is incredible how the author noticed most of the same disturbing anti-singles views and trends that I have in this blog the last three years.

As I am a NEVER MARRIED woman, I am not going to present the full section under “divorce” in the chapter. You can visit the link to read it if you want.

The following is available for free on Google Books (this particular book is entitled “Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood”) :
(Link): Single Adults in Your Ministry: Why They Stay and Why They Stray
by Dick Purnell

    … Do you know how many single adults sit in your congregation each Sunday? Recently I was speaking in a church to three thousand people. I asked for all the people who were unmarried and twenty-two years old or older to stand up. Over a thousand people stood up! The audience was surprised and gasped at the large number…

Do you realize that the number of single adults in America exceeds the total national population of all but eleven of the world’s 192 nations? How shocked would you be to discover that the number of single parents is greater than the entire population of Colorado and Tennesse combined?

According to the 2000 U.S. census 40 percent of all adults eighteen and older (forty-eight million) are single. We are seeing a tremendous shift in American social values.

The median age of a first-time marriage is now twenty-five among women and twenty-seven among men. The fastest growing family type is single parents.

If your church is in an urban area, the percentage of single adults near you is much higher than a rural area. Singles gravitate to the cities for jobs, things to do, and others to meet. They are searching for connection and community.

They are often afraid of loneliness, commitment, and isolation. Most of those under thirty have never been married. The average age of a married person’s first divorce is thirty-four. That means after years of marriage, they are thrown back into the dating scene. They feel awkward and unprepared. They face the same relationship challenges that teens face, but they feel out of place.

One woman said to me, “I am now single, but I feel married. I don’t want to be single, but that was forced on me.” They have been out of the dating world for so long that they have very little idea what to do. And no one is helping them or even having a discussion about some of these issues.

Most singles are invisible to churches.

… They represent every economic stratum you can imagine – everything from presidents of major corporations to the unemployed and all in between. Fifty-three percent of all unchurched adults are single.

But our churches are built on a mind-set of marriage, and singles are often neglected. They are the “Great Invisible Mission Field.” However, businesses are very aware of singles. If you look at the advertising on television or in magazines, you will find that a huge number of ads are geared to attract single people.

Sports clothing, beer, cell phones, and a myriad of other products are marketed to singles. They have the largest amount of discretionary income. But the church in general has a difficult time attracting them and capturing their attention and commitment.

Many single adults believe that the church excludes and ignores them. They feel like the church is either neglecting them or is just not interested in them. So single adults vote with their feet. They come to church for a few months or years; but when their needs are not addressed or they never hear a sermon addressed to their unique issues, they fade away and go somewhere else – or stop going to church altogether. They hear sermons preached on topics such as “How to be a Godly Husband” or “Becoming a Godly Wife.” But they have never heard a sermon on “How to be a Godly Single Adult.”

… [Singles] don’t stay because there is no emotional glue to keep them there. They are not the “squeaky wheel” that is going to ask the pastor to give a sermon directed toward them or to pound on the door of the budget meeting pressuring for more funding. They just fade away.

Are you desperate to attract single adults to your ministry and get them involved? Here is my top ten list on “Why Single Adults Are Turned Off by the Church.”

Number 10: Frivolous jokes degrade the single lifestyle.
Grandparents, pastors, and married friends all have jokes about singles. All the married people laugh, but the single buries the snub under a weak smile.

I was single for forty-two years. When I served as an assistant pastor in my middle thirties, I heard lots of good-natured jokes, but often the ribbing was not funny to me. “Hey, are you afraid to take the responsibility for a mate?” Here I was in charge of several significant ministries in the church, and they tell me I’m afraid to take responsibility?

“Maybe you are just too picky. Are you looking for a perfect wife?” In other words, if you lower your standards you may get somebody.

“You’re not getting any younger, you know.” That was supposed to pressure me to get moving? Sometimes I would get the big one: “What are you waiting for?” Like I better hurry up before I miss the “right one.” But isn’t there a sovereign God? His timing may not be my timing – or the timing of the people who ask me to hurry up.

In trying to encourage me, people would give what I call romantic testimonies: “I finally gave everything to God, and six months later I found the right one.” But I was forty years old and had been a full-time minister for over fifteen years.

Was there something I had not given up to God that some married twenty-year-old ha already given up to God? All the marriage formulas that people give singles may be individual experience they had, but those formulas are not normative for all believers. Why should I seek the holy grail of marriage if God wants me to be content in every situation?

After four years as a pastor, I resigned from my church. Even though I was no longer was the pastor, I continued to attend the church. A single female friend of mine from Kansas came to our city one weekend to visit some of her college buddies. I brought her to the 11 A.M. church service. As we were walking down the aisle, an elderly usher led us to a front row for seating. The organ was softly playing and everybody was kind of quiet. When we stopped to turn into the row, he handed my friend a bulletin and said to me loudly so most of the people could hear, “Hey Dick, when are you going to marry her?” I wanted to die right there, but first I wanted to punch his lights out.

These kinds of jokes will not attract singles to your church! No way! They degrade single life as if the only bright future is for married people. That idea is not found in the Bible. Even the apostle Paul stated that an unmarried person can have undivided devotion to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-35). He did not consider singleness a joking matter.

Number 9: Church leadership is mainly interested in the interests and needs of married people.
The pastor and leaders are usually all married with very little significant empathy or understanding of the unique needs and concerns of single adults.

Single Christians are rarely eligible to be members of the governing board. There are very few single senior pastors. The silent criterion of marriage eliminates singles from serving in many aspects of the typical church. If you carry that to a logical conclusion, the Apostle Paul would not be qualified to be a pastor or elder. Even Timothy would be shut out of the opportunity for leadership.

After four years as an assistant pastor, I wanted to become a senior pastor. I had a total of fifteen years experience in the ministry and two Master’s degrees. However, when I sent in my resumes, not one church ever asked me to candidate, because I had to write on the front page of the resume my marital status: “Single.” Who wants a senior pastor who is single?

It was a bitter experience. I was unqualified to be a senior pastor of a church because I did not have the “Mrs.” degree. Many men graduating from seminary have tremendous pressure put on them. If they want to rise above the level of youth pastor, they must be married. Why is marriage the unspoken golden key that unlocks the door to pastor advancement?

Number 8: Budgeted funds for single ministry are usually inadequate or nonexistent.
Many churches don’t budge anything for singles. When the churches that have budgeted some funds for singles ministry must cut the budget somewhere, the singles ministry often is the one that gets the ax. “Singles are adults – they can handle it,” the budget committee says. But the message that gets across is, “You are not as important as other people in our church.”

… The message the singles hear is loud and cleaer: “You are the lowest on the totem pole. Your needs come last. You are not worth our paying a minister who can meet your needs.” Therefore, singles respond with their feet. They say, “I’m out of here.”

Number 7: Singles feel the church neglects them.
They feel like barnacles on the side of the church ship – there but forgotten. Marriage is espoused as the norm, and singles just don’t fit the model.

I have conducted over three hundred single adult conferences throughout America, Canada, and twelve other countries. Yet only nine senior pastors stopped by to observe and/or greet the crowd.

The even was in their church, in their building, and these are adults. I remember each of the nine because they are so rare….

Number 6: There is a perception that single adults are morally loose.

If a person is not married by mid-twenties, there is something wrong, it is generally thought. A particular church was in the process of trying to hire a youth pastor. Since they could not find one for over a year, they held a congregational meeting to explain the progress they were making. The elder in charge presented all kinds of reasons for the delay in locating the right person for the position. At the end of his explanation, I stopped up and asked, “Does the person you are looking for have to be married?”

You could have heard a pin drop on the carpet. People gasped. It was the unthinkable question. The elder hemmed, and he hawed, and he slithered all over the platform. All I wanted was a yes or no. He was very obviously unnerved by my question. Finally some lady in the very back said, “What we need is a role model for the young girls. So I think he should be married.”

“You mean to tell me, in this entire congregation there is not one woman who’s a role model for the girls?” Silence.

“I tell you what I think the real reason is. You are afraid that a single pastor would be sexually frustrated and have sex with one of the teenage girls. Out of all the pastors I have known personally, four have had affairs and left the ministry in disgrace. Each of them was married. Almost all the other pastors I have read about in magazines and books who have committed adultery were married. True, married people do not have a corner on the market in becoming immoral. But you should not be prejudiced against a single adult simply because he is single.”

I tried to tell them that some of the best youth pastors in America are single. I wasn’t a very popular guy after that. The elders eventually hired a youth pastor. Yes, he was married.

Some churches won’t allow singles to teach Sunday school for fear these men and women will succumb to sexual temptation. That is unfounded fear. We all need the power of God to overcome temptation. Don’t single out single people as the most likely to succumb. That is unfair and inaccurate. Single adults want to be respected and trusted. Let them show by their faithfulness that they have a genuine relationship with God.

Number 5: Marriage is portrayed as normal for everybody.
If someone is not married by thirty something, there must be something wrong with him or her.
(please click on the “continue reading/ read more” link to see rest of the post. Thank you)

Continue reading “Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts”

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

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

(Note: the specific mentions of Moore and Kushiner and how both are attacking the Bible’s teachings on virginity / sexual purity come farther down in this opinion piece, after my introduction)

Jan 1 2015 update (Nov 2017 update way below):

I just noticed today that Moore has blocked me from his Twitter account, which I never followed to start with (the notice on his page says I cannot follow his Twitter feed, which I never did. I don’t know when he blocked me, but it was sometime over 2014).

I only tweeted at him a handful of times over 2014, with links to this blog page you are reading. And he blocked me over THAT?


Edit: See the update after you read this post: (Link): Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites * Irony Alert *

And related:

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


I am still amazed by emergents, liberal Christians, and even a strain of conservative Christians, who feel as though Christendom has made an “idol of virginity,” when I see so many self-professing Christians these days mocking or questioning the very concepts of virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity, concepts which are taught in the Bible.

Oh sure, I hear the occasional sermon on marriage where the preacher tosses out the obligatory “sex is for marriage only” sentiment (just today, TV preacher Jack Graham delivered such commentary in his broadcast sermon on marriage).

However, in practice and in reality, many Christians do not believe in virginity, celibacy, or sexual purity, and many of them do not practice it.

See: (Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity By extension, most Christians do not support Christian singles, who are told in the Bible to practice celibacy. Most Christians today, their churches and organizations, are too busy worshipping marriage and the traditional, nuclear family and lamenting the decay of “traditional marriage.”

Singles get overlooked in all the marriage and family worship, or all the hand-wringing over the fall of the nuclear family. Churches and the Christian community as a whole do not support Christians who are never- married, past the age of 30, and who are still virgins.

I became a Christian before reaching the age of ten (lately, though, I have considered leaving the faith, over the sex and singles issue, among other reasons). From a young age, I took Christianity and its teachings on sexual purity to heart.

I made a choice at very young age that I would wait until marriage to have sex. When you are below age 25, the church will applaud you for being a virgin.

Once you get to to your late 20s or into your 30s, the support you see in this area disappears. It dries up. (You will actually be attacked by Christians for being single and a virgin into your 30s and beyond.)

Other than Christianity, I did have one or two other reasons why I was determined to remain chaste (which I will not get into here).

My decision to remain chaste in adolescence coincides with the repeated sermonizing I heard in the 1980s and part of the 1990s of preachers ranting and raving against the sexual immorality of the day, and how a Christian should remain sexually pure. I also read the Bible as a teen, and I could not help but notice all the passages saying sex was for marriage only. I also heard or read works by authors such as Christian apologist Josh McDowell about how sex was for marriage only.

Works such as these, and sermons I heard, were one reason of several, I did not have sex.

Much of Christian dating, sex, and marriage articles and books I read as a teenager, and many of the sermons I heard on those topics, either stated out right, or implied very strongly, that if a Christian female remains sexually pure, seeks after God, stays skinny and pretty, prays to God, and has faith in God for a spouse, that God will send that young woman a “Christian Mr. Right” by the time she reaches mid or late 20s. I did all of those things and still find myself single in my early 40s.

I have seen other never-married Christian ladies in their 30s, 40s, and 50s give the same witness on other blogs: they too were sold a false bill of goods.

They were told by preachers, Christian relationship books and so forth, that if they trusted God for a spouse and did not have sex, that God would grant them, or reward them, with a spouse, and that the spouse would likely also be another Christian virgin.

However, in the last few years, I’ve seen Christians on TV shows, radio shows, and on blogs, declaring that all of us are sexual sinners (i.e. fornicators, who have literally had sexual intercourse).

Or, there is this understanding among some Christians that all people have had sex outside of marriage (or else are porn addicts), so, their philosophy is to present an “Easy Forgivism Sex Gospel” to soothe any guilt or shame feelings sexual sinners may have.

I find these constant appeals of “let sexual sinners off the hook and be all forgive-y to them, because all of us have sexual sin” confusing and discouraging, because I am in my early 40s and have not had sexual intercourse. It is simply not true that “all of us are fornicators.”

These easy forgivism attitudes towards sexual sin amounts to telling Christians they should not judge people’s sexual pasts, or hold their sexual pasts against them, nor should they adhere to biblical sexual standards, or expect others to live by them. Christians are further given the message – by other Christians – that they should not make an idol of virginity, and if you yourself have fornicated (had sex outside of marriage), to forgive yourself and move on.

The thinking is that nobody but nobody can hold out and resist sexual urges into their twenties and beyond, that we’re all guilty of fornicating, or habitually visiting X-rated sites.

Even though all of us are not guilty of these things – it is wrongly assumed all of us are, though.

The liberals and emergents think that Christians should cease with the virginity teachings and sexual purity teachings because some women, who chose to have sex as teens or as college students, feel guilty, ashamed, or dirty when they hear in sermons or Christian programs that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Then your sexual abuse victims, who were fondled at age six by their Uncle Harry, say these sexual purity teachings hurt their feelings.

According to this “sensitive, delicate flower doctrinal” view point, Christians are to allow their emotions to dictate and influence which doctrines and morals Christians should accept, teach, and practice, and specifically, shame and guilt emotions should regulate how, when, or if biblical standards of sexual behavior are discussed, taught, or maintained.

Christian author and journalist Julia Duin is among one of the few who I’ve seen speak out or about the devaluing of sexual purity teachings and the mistreatment of Christian virgins.

Here is one post where Duin discussed the issue, and where she was rightfully critical of Russell D. Moore’s easy dismissal of virginity:

(Link): Where are America’s virgins? Discouraging the virtuous, by Julia Duin Here is an excerpt, the part where she mentions Moore:

    This past spring in Touchstone, a conservative Christian publication, Russell Moore, a Southern Baptist minister who is dean of Southern Seminary’s School of Theology in Louisville, penned “Like, A Virgin?” His essay criticized a chaste female who wanted her husband to be a virgin like she is. He hinted she was being unrealistic and judgmental for judging a potential mate on his sexual history rather than his Christian commitment. This hapless woman resisted the spirit of the age and yet, her Christian leader denigrated her values. So much for seeking out a pastor’s advice.

–end excerpt–

If I’m not mistaken, Duin was responding to this column by Moore (or one similar to it):

(Link): How Much Do I Need to Know About My Potential Spouse’s Sexual Past? My Response – By Russell Moore

That Duin piece above, was, in turn criticized by this James Kushiner guy:

(Link): Doesn’t Like “Like, a Virgin?” by James M. Kushiner

Here are excerpts from the page by Kushiner, who is critical of Duin for criticizing Moore’s views:

He [Moore] is clear throughout the article about the Christian teaching about sexual activity, that fornication is “damnable”, and the sad necessity that couples even have to have “the conversation,”….

–end excerpt–

The problem, my dear Mr. Kushiner, is that Christians speak out of both sides of their mouth on the celibacy and virginity and all related issues (eg, marriage/ singleness/ gender roles, etc etc). It’s all fine and good if Moore mentions in passing that ((Link): source)

    What’s important for you to know is how he [the letter writer’s fiance] views sexual immorality. A man who will brush off past fornication as “no big deal” from which he’s “moved on” is a man with a conscience trained to do the same thing with future adultery.

–end excerpt–

But then Moore’s next commentary betrays a true support of sexual purity when he condescendingly lectures this young woman that,

    On the other hand, your dismissing him automatically on the basis of immorality is also dangerous. If he is repentant, seeing his past sin as hell-deserving but crucified, then you should receive him (all else being equal), just as you have been received.
    You are not “owed” a virgin because you are.
    Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man.
    Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God. And you have rebelled at other points, and been forgiven. If you believe the gospel, you believe the gospel for everyone, and not just for yourself.

–end excerpt–

It’s very easy for those who have fornicated themselves, or who are currently married (they were a virgin when they wed, but are currently getting their sexual needs met in marriage), and I am guessing Moore and Kushiner fall into either one of those groups, to be so blithe and dismissive of sexual sin, and/or to lecture a single virgin who wants marriage that it is selfish or unforgiving to be concerned about a potential partner’s sexual past or to desire a virgin to marry.

Really, Mr. Moore, if a person’s sexual past is basically “no biggie,” as you make it out to be (despite your “fornication is not good” spiel in the same column), and a person should just drop the matter and let it go as though it’s nothing, if the person has repented of it, what then, is the point in me personally staying a virgin?

The message I receive from these views is that I might as well be having sex right now with various men, or just one steady boyfriend, since according to Moore, if I do get a marriage proposal from a Christian man in the future, he should just overlook my fornication with some other guy. Continue reading “Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner”