Humor for Christian singles – more specifically, never married Christians over 35 years old.
Click on these images to make them bigger:
I think it’s a sad, sad commentary on American society these days when people who are virgins until they marry, or who remain celibate after a divorce are considered special, unique, or newsworthy. If anything, waiting until marriage, even if you’re a virgin at 30 or 40, because you have not married yet, should be viewed as the norm, not the exception.
However, I think maybe an article like this might encourage some older Christian singles, since goodness knows they aren’t getting encouragement for remaining celibate from the church in America.
I have no plans of copying the entire list, so if you want to see it, you will have to visit their site.
Celebrities Who Abstained: They Waited Or Are Waiting Until Marriage To Give Up Their V-Cards
These stars might be sex symbols, posing in sensual photo shoots, shooting steamy scenes and writing lyrics that could sing the pants off anyone, but don’t be mistaken: these celebs are pretty conservative when it comes to what happens between the sheets. Here are 19 celebrities who waited til marriage or are waiting until marriage to give up his or her v-cards.
The American Hurdler that fell short of medals at the 2012 Olympics is still holding on tight to her V-Card. “It’s just something, a gift I want to give my husband” says 30-year old Jones, saying that abstaining from sex has been “Harder than training for the Olympics.” The American Hurdler that fell short of medals at the 2012 Olympics is still holding on tight to her V-Card. “It’s just something, a gift I want to give my husband” says 30-year old Jones, saying that abstaining from sex has been “Harder than training for the Olympics.”
Kathie Lee Gifford
The Today show host kept her sacred treasure all to herself until she was 22, when she gave it up to her first husband Paul Johnson, something she reveals in her autobiography. “My lifelong self-consciousness about my body seemed, miraculously, to fade away…” Gifford says of the experience.
The Friends star is nothing like the free-loving hippie she played on the show. Lisa remained a virgin until she was 31, a decision she explained while promoting her 1999 film The Opposite of Sex. “My virginity was something I’d decided was very precious…an honor I was bestowing on a young man.” That young man turned out to be her husband, Michael Stern.
At the age of 22, the oldest Jonas Brother wore a “purity ring” until 2007, when he married Danielle Deleasa (the co-star on the new reality show Married to Jonas.)
Continue reading “Celebrities who waited until marriage to have sex”
I have a feeling sexist Seattle pastor and wanna be cool guy Mark Driscoll would give this husband’s actions a stamp of approval. Driscoll, and other complementarian gender guys pretty much believe a woman owes sex to her husband whenever and where ever and how ever he wants it.
They might toss in a few qualifiers like, “such- and- such a sex act should not be done if one partner is really against it,” or something, but from many articles I’ve read about Driscoll, comments he has made in sermons, and interviews with former members of his church, and based on comments I’ve seen about other Christian gender role traditionalists, they do pretty much believe that sex is one-sided: that sex is for a man only; a woman is obligated to give her husband sex whenever and how often he wants it, even if she’s not in the mood, or feeling sick, or is not comfortable with certain sex acts.
Florida man, refused sex, chops off most of girlfriend’s nose
A sexually frustrated Florida man chopped off most of his girlfriend’s nose when she refused to have intercourse with him, cops said.
Ricardo Salamanca of Plantation, Fla. has been charged with aggravated battery and is currently sitting in jail on a $75,000 bond.
The twisted nose job took place on the night of Oct. 28, after Salamanca’s girlfriend left him at a local nightclub.
—–(end news story quotes)——
I can just see sex obsessed and sexist pastors such as Driscoll, Ed Young, and others thinking that is a great way of keeping wives in line: threaten to cut their noses off if they refuse sex, or actually cut their noses off if they don’t. I seriously think that some within the traditional gender role camp within conservative Christianity are remarkably and eerily like Muslim Taliban, who shoot girls in the head for attending school and wanting other girls to have educations. Most mainstream conservative Christians are not like that, but some on the fringe are that creepy and sexist.
Please click the “more” link to read the rest of this post
I am not a liberal or a Democrat, and I am not against “traditional,” “family,” or “biblical” values nor the “nuclear family,” nor am I against “traditional marriage,” but I do think the American Christian church of today places far, far too much emphasis on these issues, to the point they make people who are not married at age 25 with three kids feel unwelcome.
I am in my early forties, and I am a Christian female, as well as a conservative Republican, and despite the fact I wanted to be married, it never happened.
Do churches care about me, or people in my stage of life? Nope. They offer no services or sermons for the older single who has no kids, childless or childfree. We are ignored, or else treated like trash by the Southern Baptist denomination and by evangelical churches.
So I agree with some of the content in this web page I have quoted below, and I can see its implications for contemporary American Christianity, not just Republicans.
What I am afraid of is that Christian leadership from various churches and denominations will see political stories such as this one about Obama winning the 2012 election and think the only corrective is to go even more into hyper-drive regarding the pushing of “family values,” or cries of “save the nuclear family.”
Why do I find this a concern? Because the conservative American church has already been obsessive about protecting the nuclear family (and marriage) for decades now, which has led to the dating drought in the church, prolonged singleness among Christians, and ostracizing older singles or married couples with no children, because they do nothing to help older singles actually get married, or make marrieds with no kids feel welcome.
Most American church groups fixate desperately on getting singles of teen-aged years and people in their twenties in the church door, so as not to “lose the younger generation,” but as personal experience and Julia Duin’s “Qutting Church” book demonstrate, this unfortunate, nauseating, and age- based discriminatory fixation has led to singles over the age of 30 leaving the church in droves because THEIR needs are not being met – older Christians are being ignored in favor of luring in the kids.
As a result with their disappointment over the Republican 2012 Presidential defeat (I’m not happy with Obama winning a second term, either), I can just see some pastors and conservative Christian groups buckling down even harder on defending heterosexual marriage, sexual purity (which is a bit of a joke; many conservative Christians groups claim they support virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity but do not), and so on, which will only hurt older Christian singles more, or at least not do anything to improve their plight.
The American church, Southern Baptists included, refuse to be dragged into the 21st century. I do not agree with liberalism, homosexuality, abortion, or any of that, and I don’t know what the solution is to the erosion of “biblical” values, but I know what it is not, and what has not worked: continued obsession with 1950s American culture – of pretending like we are all still living in 1955 America, or that we should return to that era.
I’m tired of being ignored or being under-utilized when I attend a new church because I’m not a wife or a mommy or because I do not have a penis. I am not June Cleaver, the perfect 1950s fictional housewife with husband and two kids who wears pearls while she vacuums. I want a church that deals with my existence and acknowledges it – I’m over 40, a woman, I’ve never married or had a kid, and I do NOT like children. I have NO interest in working in the church nursery or the kitchen.
by Jonathan D. Fitzgerald, Nov 15, 2012 4:45 AM EST
Republicans are searching for an explanation as to why voters rejected their vision of America. The answer may be on their television screens, where an ever-expanding, bluer definition of family values makes their nostalgic idea of family values feel like a foreign world.
The biggest loser of last week’s elections may have been the Republican Party’s image of the American family. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, blamed the Republican loss on a dramatic change in our country’s “moral landscape.” He’s right, but this isn’t new: the GOP vision of America, which includes patriarchal churchgoing families with sexually abstinent teenagers who have no use for birth control hasn’t been a reality since the 1950s
So what happened? As it turns out, one of the most influential forces in changing Americans’ definition of family can be found in the homes of liberals and conservatives alike: their televisions. Slowly over time, the family sitcoms that Americans have been watching for decades effectively transformed what was once the culturally reinforced American ideal family into a relic of the not-so-distant past.
Continue reading “Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville”
Please do not leave general, generic “I hate TBN” rants in this thread, if you want to leave a comment. This is not the thread for that purpose. This is a thread specifically about their “Praise a Thons” and how boring and annoying they are! (If you are dying to post a “I sure do hate TBN and / or the Prosperity Gospel they are always pushing” rant, then use this thread. Thanks.)
TBN began its tele-thon two days ago. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I think this is the third one they’ve done this year (they normally do only two per year). If this is the third one, I wonder why they’re doing a third?
I have always disliked the TBN tele thons which they call “Praise A Thons,” so I don’t usually watch them.
I’ve watched these TBN “give- us-your- money- thons” only long enough in the past a few times to see they are very boring, they usually have the same con artists doing “plant a seed!” type sermons (and they always include the preacher guy with the horrible blond hair that looks like a bad, cheap wig), other bad preaching, and loud, horrible singing.
One thing that particularly disgusts me about their Praise A Thons is that they air them even on Saturday mornings in place of the kid cartoons, and they also run Praise A Thons on Sunday mornings.
If you are a network that claims to be all down with spreading the Gospel, I would assume you would forgo the begging for money shtick so that little children can see cartoons about Jesus on Saturdays and that house-bound people, including seniors, can watch preachers on Sunday morning, but noooo, they can’t spare Saturday and Sunday mornings and have to run these dull Praise A Thon things on weekends too.
They also began at some point running the Praise A Thon for a second week, which is also annoying. The first week, this money grubbing, boring show is aired 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and then the week after, they tend to run it from about 4 PM to about 7 PM to 9 PM. As if running it 24/7 week one was not enough.
How I wish there was a sound alternative to TBN. Not only do they air too much Prosperity Gospel trash, but these Praise A Thon things are boring, and they do them 2 – 3 times a year.
I’ve noticed the few times I’ve left posts about specific complaints or observations about TBN, I’ll get visitors who leave generic “I hate TBN” type of comments, and that’s not what I’m hoping to see in the comments.
I don’t completely agree with all teachings on TBN, so I’m sympathetic, but how about not using any and every post of mine that makes a reference to TBN an excuse to just bash TBN in general?
Two posts before this one, for example, I made a post today noting that TBN keeps airing Paul Crouch Sr. telling and re-telling how he founded TBN, and how repetitive and annoying this TBN history lesson is. Instead of agreeing with that specific point, one visitor used that post to bash TBN in general terms.
I propose if you are a TBN-hater and want to rant and rave about how they push the “Wealth and Health Gospel” and how Jan Crouch’s pink hair is funny looking, and so on and so forth, that you use this particular blog post for that, instead of using each and every post I make mentioning TBN to gripe in general terms about TBN.
Believe me, I’m sympathetic to much of your disdain for TBN, but that doesn’t mean I want every single post I make about them on my blog to turn into an all- purpose ‘I sure do hate TBN, those Word of Faith heretics!’ type rant fest. If I make a post with a SPECIFIC gripe about TBN, please address that specific point, instead of telling me “they’re frauds, greedy, and Word of Faithers,” since I already know all that and agree with most of it.
It’s good the people at Christian network TBN occasionally mix up their Saturday morning kiddie programming, but last time I watched, they removed a few of the shows I liked, such as one of the cartoons about animated bugs – either “Hermie” or “Carlos the Caterpillar,” they removed “God Rocks!”, and they removed a few other of my favorites.
Yes, I’m an adult over the age of 40 who admits to watching Saturday morning Christian kiddie shows. Ironically, I find TBN’s kids shows better, more biblically correct and encouraging, than most of the material aimed at adults on TBN. Their kid shows seems largely free of the prosperity gospel nonsense that permeates their adult programming, for one thing. I am not, however, a fan TBN’s shows such as “iShine KNECT” (aimed at tweens), and I wish they’d remove that show.
When I began watching TBN kid programming several years ago, they had a bad, bad tendency to keep airing the same set of shows over and over to the point I saw each episode a million times each. I’m talking specifically about “Bible Man,” and “McGee and Me.” Those two shows dragged on and on for about six or seven years until they pulled them and replaced them with other shows. To make matters worse, “McGee and Me” was filmed in the 1980s and clearly looked it – and the music, the pop rock soundtrack, sounded very 1980s too.
This past Saturday or so, TBN began airing old black and white episodes of the show “Lassie,” which I think originally were filmed in the 1950s. I like dogs, and have nothing against Lassie, but I find the show a little boring and can’t figure out why a Christian network is airing it.
I guess not every show has to contain an explicit Bible lesson in it, or quotes from the Bible, but I’m not seeing what a show about a dog who saves people has to do with Christianity?
I never get tired of “Davey and Goliath.” I at first did not like “The LADs TV” show, but it grew on me after a few months but was recently pulled from the TBN Saturday morning line up. About the only new addition they made that I enjoy is some kind of art show, where an artist shows kids how to make drawings and crafts.
The “Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible” cartoon show (or whatever it’s called – it is hosted by actor Charlton Heston) is okay, but I find the song numbers a tad annoying. The introductions, which are hosted by Heston, are way, way too long and dull.
I’m an adult and after the first couple of minutes of Heston giving the upcoming cartoon’s back-story bores me to the point I lose focus on what he’s saying. I can only imagine how a kid must feel having to sit through five to ten minutes of tedious exposition by a then- 75 year old (or whatever) white haired Heston, before getting to the cartoon show.
The “Auto B Good” show. The Vallery Girl accent of the pink car, while cute at first, grows annoying after awhile. One irritating aspect of this cartoon is that it’s clearly a rip off of Disney’s “CARS” movie (I’m assuming it came after CARS).
Christians in entertainment – cartoons, movies, rock music – have this stupid, irritating tendency to copy and mimic something that has become popular in secular culture. It makes us Christians look even more pathetic to the secular culture, as though we are trying too hard to look cool and relevant, like Mark Driscoll fixating on sex, cage fighting, and wearing skinny jeans in his sermons (pastor Ed Young is also guilty of all that): it makes him and Christianity by association look LAME, not cutting edge or cool.
I am watching Praise the Lord on TBN. It’s the episode they filmed in Israel several months ago (in late 2011) where Joseph Prince was the main speaker. They have re-run this episode several times already in the past few months.
Anyway, at the start of this, Paul Crouch Sr. once again told the story about how TBN got off the ground. The bank demanded some kind of payment from TBN by 5 PM or they wouldn’t be approved for a loan or going on air, or whatever. So Crouch tells how some guy visited him to say “Here is a check for a lot of money. I was going to use it to buy a boat, but I felt God telling me to give it to you.”
Crouch then tells how he raced to the bank with moments to spare, and that is how TBN got on air.
This story wouldn’t be so bad if not for the fact he seems to tell it fairly regularly. About 15 – 20 years ago, they even filmed a re-enactment of it, where they show him racing down the halls of TBN to race to the bank.
I know, I watch way too much TBN. I’ve tried to stop. I don’t agree with any of the Prosperity Gospel dreck they stand behind and promote, but they do occasionally air decent material.
I hope they stop airing Crouch Sr. re-telling his “run to the bank just to deliver the check in the nick of time story” any more.
There are times when I hate being single and wish I had been married, but there are times I’m glad that I’ve remained unmarried into my forties. One reason is that I see people who marry all the time – for the wrong reasons, and they are miserable.
There is a lot of societal pressure to marry, and to marry by the age of 35 at that, which is why so many women (and maybe some men) marry someone they are not truly happy with or in love with, and they get divorced years later.
Here’s another example, a letter sent to advice columnist Carolyn Hax with this heading:
“Quest for public approval pushed her into marriage and is keeping her there”
Here is what the letter writer said:
I don’t know why I got married. Probably a swirling mix of low self-esteem, anxiety and the desire to prove my mother wrong about my boyfriend caused me to pressure him to propose. What I’m left with is a husband who doesn’t really love me and the sinking feeling that I made a terrible mistake.
I don’t know how much effort to put into making this work vs. cutting my losses. He isn’t a bad person, but we don’t make each other particularly happy and this isn’t a relationship where I feel treasured. I would get a divorce without thinking about it, but I’m embarrassed about the possible “I told you so’s.” I keep hoping the minister made a mistake and we’re not really married and I can just walk away.
On a similar note, here’s an article that says that married women are cheating just as much as married men these days:
Here are excerpts from “The New Face of Infidelity,” by Peggy Drexler, October 19, 2012
…Lately, however, researchers have been raising doubts about this view: They believe that the incidence of unfaithfulness among wives may be approaching that of husbands. The lasting costs of these betrayals will be familiar to the many Americans who have experienced divorce as spouses or children.
Among the most reliable studies on this issue is the General Social Survey, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, which has been asking Americans the same questions since 1972. In the 2010 survey, 19% of men said that they had been unfaithful at some point during their marriages, down from 21% in 1991. Women who reported having an affair increased from 11% in 1991 to 14% in 2010.
A 2011 study conducted by Indiana University, the Kinsey Institute and the University of Guelph found much less of a divide: 23% for men and 19% for women. Such numbers suggest the disappearance of the infidelity gender gap, but some caution is in order.
…And if you believe the General Social Survey’s finding that 14% of women are cheating, keep in mind that 86% aren’t.
Still, even though survey accuracy is difficult to achieve and experts are by no means unanimous, it would appear that women are, indeed, catching up. In my own work as a psychologist and in my social circle, I see more women not only having affairs but actively seeking them out. Their reasons are familiar: validation of their attractiveness, emotional connection, appreciation, ego—not to mention the thrill of a shiny new relationship, unburdened by the long slog through the realities of coupledom.
Continue reading “People Who Marry for the Wrong Reasons”
The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity
I am put off and annoyed by common comments and advice I see by Christians regarding sexual sin.
First, it is assumed by most Christians, including preachers, that other Christians over the age of 25 are having sex, and having lots of it, possibly with many different partners.
This assumption annoys me. I’m in my early 40s, and my virginity is still intact. The fact that someone can remain a virgin past 25 years old seems inconceivable to most Christians. I expect that shoddy, short-sighted attitude from secular culture, but other Christians? What a let down.
Secondly, for all conservative Christianity’s supposed upholding of sexual purity and virginity, I see the opposite in practice and in living these teachings out in real life.
As I addressed in my previous post, many American Christians pay mere lip service to sexual abstinence for all unmarried people, and lay it on extra thick for teens and those up to age 25.
But past age 25, especially past the age of 30, Christians who have still refrained from sex are either ignored (we get no material or sermons encouraging us, no practical help or tips on how to stave off loneliness and so forth, or no ‘patting us on the back’ for a job well done), or we get subjected to odd looks, insults, or put downs from the Christian culture. (One reason for this is that it is assumed we failed because we did not marry and have kids.)
In light of all that, it cannot be said that American Christians are truly committed to virginity or sexual purity. They claim they are, but in practicality, where the rubber meets the road, they are not.
If you cannot support those Christians who are over 35 years old who are celibate, you are not genuinely in favor of the belief that ‘sex is only for marriage,’ because if you were, you’d put your money, time, and effort where your mouth was.
One of my biggest pet peeves revolves around how Christians, especially pastors, address sexual sin. (Click the “more” link to read the rest of this post.)
Continue reading “The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity”
1 Corinthians 7:28:
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Skimming over a list of recent secular advice columnist Carolyn Hax columns recently, I feel happy with never having been married, and that I am a life long celibate.
Sometimes, I feel upset at having arrived in my 40s without ever married, but then I see things online or on the TV that makes me feel glad I am still single and not having sex.
Here’s a selection of just a few of Hax’s recent column headlines:
“When to disclose you have herpes.” –When to disclose your herpes?! Good grief. I have never been in that situation and likely never will be.
It’s hard being a celibate Christian over the age of 40.
We’re mostly invisible to the American Christian church at large, and get no encouragement or support to remain celibate.
I’m constantly inundated with pro-sex (and pro-marriage) messages and images every time I turn on the television, go to a movie, look at a magazine – and that’s just from “Christian culture,” not counting the mountain of sex messages and imagery I get from secular culture, not just in regards to sex, but the secular culture keeps up this facade that a person cannot be validated unless one is in a romantic relationship.
Regarding my point that the current American Christian culture is just as obsessed with sex as is the secular culture, here are a few examples: everything from pastor Mark Driscoll’s frequent kinky, perverted, sex-filled sermons (he even sexualizes non-sexual content, such as the book of Esther), and pastor Ed Young’s stupid, immature, weird, tacky “Sexperiment.”
You can read more about those topics here (I am not necessarily in full agreement with all views on all topics on blogs and sites I link to):
This discusses how Driscoll and other pastors are obsessed with sex:
Older celibates get treated like weirdos or failures in and out of the church, by Christians and by secular people.
The hypocrisy from Christians is amazing on this point. They frequently lecture teen aged Christians, and the 20-something Christians, to refrain from sex outside of marriage, but when these Christians actually succeed in doing this, and remain unmarried and virgins into their 40s and beyond (such as yours truly), we get treated like second class citizens and freaks by the church. (click “more” to read the rest of the post)
Continue reading “Those Times When You’re Glad to be a Celibate, Single Christian – 1 Corinthians 7:28”
Single Christian Women Have No Protection according to some preachers
I’m watching pastor Jeff Schreve on his weekly series, “From His Heart Ministries” giving a sermon on marriage today. Schreve seems like a sincere pastor and an all around nice guy, but he seems to believe in male headship, and as (Link): I am a biblical egalitarian, I don’t share his view on that matter.
However, another thing Schreve is talking about that I find disturbing: he said in part of this sermon that a woman is under the protection of her mom and dad until she marries, then she is “under the protection of her husband” when she marries. The Bible does not teach this concept, not in the New Testament.
((edit): This teaching also sounds eerily like Reconstructionist / Quiverfull teachings, see: (Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview))
Problem: I am in my early 40s, pastor Schreve, and never married. I am single, a Christian woman. So who is my “protection,” pastor Schreve?
I am not the only one, there are many, many Christian women my age and older who have never married, and a lot of them live alone, work jobs, and pay rent alone.
Who is our “protector”? If you say God, Holy Spirit, or Christ, I don’t get it – would that same answer also not be true for married women? Why would a woman’s “protector” go from Father, Spirit and Son to husband just because she marries??
(Edit.) I watched the following Sunday’s sermon, where this same pastor did a topic about the role of women. I don’t recall everything he talked about, but I do remember he once again neglected to mention women over the age of 35 who have never married or had kids.
Schreve again mentioned how there is no higher calling for a woman than to raise children (although, again, the Bible does not teach either concept, but actually holds (Link): singleness and being childfree in higher esteem and no, the Bible does not teach that God “calls” some to singleness, either, so a preacher cannot brush this off by saying, “It’s okay for YOU to be single if God called you to be” – I have addressed these unbiblical views in other posts, so I shall not get into them here – see some of the links at the bottom of this post for more).
See also, on this blog:
Some married women are infertile and unable to have a baby: how do you suppose it makes THEM feel to hear that their only God-approved role in life is to crank out a kid, if they want one, and are unable to have one? And neither should women who choose NOT to reproduce, though they are capable, be made to feel ashamed of this, or judged, or condemned.
Schreve basically said that it’s “best” for a woman to stay at home and raise her kids while the husband works outside of the home. That is his opinion, and he is welcome to it, but please, point me to the Bible verses that teach this view (the Bible is silent on the matter).
I could just as easily argue that it’s best for a child for the father to be a stay- at -home dad and raise the kids, while mom goes off to work.
I’m astounded that this pastor, like so many other Christians, continue to assume that everyone over the age of 25 is married and/or a parent these days.
Census data continue to show that more and more Christians over 20 are not marrying at all, or not marrying until much later in life (current percentage of adults over 18 who are single is now 44%).
I sent his (Schreve’s) ministry an e-mail mentioning all this but all I got was a reply saying they would forward my e-mail to the pastor. (edit, Feb 2014. I never got a reply to that e-mail, nor was the topic addressed and corrected in future sermons.)
I wish pastors would wake up and realize this is 2012 and we are no longer living in 1955 America where everyone is married by 20 years of age with three kids.
By hyper-focusing on marriage and parenting, and telling never married, childless or childfree women over the age of 40 that their greatest, or only, calling in life is to be a wife and mother, you are needlessly marginalizing and insulting never- married adults, widows, the divorced, and the childless and the childfree.
If you are a preacher who holds such views about marriage, gender roles, parenting and/or you are neglecting the never-married adults (as well as other singles, such as the widows) in your audience, you are also neglecting, or violating, biblical passages such as (Link): Matthew 10:34-37 and (Link): Matthew 12:46-50 . You need to repent of your nuclear family, strict gender role views, and marriage idolatry.
(This post has been edited to add new links)
Related posts, this blog:
Driscoll also has incorrect, unbiblical views about adult celibacy:
(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias
(Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): God’s gifting of singleness is rare – More Accurate: God calls only a few to marriage and God gifts only the rare with the gift of Marriage
(Link): Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy (some preachers are teaching that unmarried adults are not 100% human, not 100% in the “image of God,” that they must marry first)
(Link): Christian TV Personality and Preacher ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage
Previously on the Christian Pundit blog:
I have tried curbing my TBN-viewing but still wind up watching quite a bit of it. I’ve noticed in the past two or three years that many of the pastors and personalities have this totally annoying habit of saying, “So good” or “That’s so good!” when they are talking to another Christian (usually a preacher), and the guest says something they think is profound.
I’ve seen several different ones do this. I wish they would stop.
So to all the preachers on TBN: STOP SAYING, “SO GOOD, THAT’S SO GOOD!” everytime someone else says something you agree with. Just stop.
There’s some lady named Stephy who has a blog that keeps trends of stupid things in contemporary Christianity called “Stuff Christians Like.” She should really consider adding “That’s so good” to her list.
A historical study of castrated men in Korea finds that they outlived their peers by a wide margin
“Our study supports the idea that male sex hormones decrease the lifespan of men,” the authors write. Based on earlier research, the authors argue that one explanation for this could be that male sex hormones may negatively influence the immune system and “predispose men to adverse cardiovascular attacks.” They note further that the theory helps explain why females — in many species — live longer than males.
….And there are other reasons that women may outlive men, including for example the presence of estrogen, which may help enhance longevity. Also, as ABC News reports:
Females may have an advantage in longevity because they have a back-up X chromosome, [Dr. L. Stephen Coles, a co-founder of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group,] said. A woman’s body is a mixture of cells, half containing an active X chromosome from her mother and the other half from her father, he said. If there is a defect on one X chromosome, half of her cells will be unaffected.
Candice Watters really missed the mark in her blog page for Boundless, “Mind The Single Minded Church.”
Watters notes that one reason so many singles have cited for dropping out of church attendance is that so many churches are “family focused.”(I think this is especially true for singles over the age of 35.)
When one has never been married but one’s local church never offers programs or sermons aimed at the particular heartaches and challenges of being single, one does tend to feel ostracized, ignored, hurt by this, or taken for granted, and so they stop attending church.
Most church sermons (the ones about how to be a better spouse or a better parent, or other marriage-related topics) are completely irrelevant to most singles.
I am one single who would not object to the occasional marriage or parenting sermon or after-church program, but it seems they are way, way, way too frequent, not only in local churches, but on Christian television shows, and on Christian blogs and in Christian magazines.
Marriage or parenting are the only metaphor preachers use in their sermons, tracts, articles, or books, as I’ve noted in previous writings on this blog.
As someone who has never married or had kids, it really stings, hurts, and annoys to always hear marriage (or parenting) used as the default story illustration in sermons or Christian books/ TV shows/ magazines. It would not be difficult for preachers or Christian television hosts to use other, non-marriage metaphors to make their points, and to stop making singles feel so excluded.
Because older singles (older, as in over 35 years old) feel so overlooked and out of place by a marriage-obsessed church body, many do stop going to church.
Therefore, some singles, some Christian authors, and a tiny minority of married pastors, have suggested that to make singles feel more included, that the church needs to stop focusing as much on the family (and on marriage) as they have been doing.
Christian author Watters, who contributes to the Christian blogzine “Boundless,” however, feels this is a bad idea and that doing so will actually create the reverse situation: make marriage even harder to obtain for Christian singles who want marriage. I have no idea how the hell she arrives at such a bizarre conclusion.
Watters asks (I am amazed that she asks this, but then I think Boundless is an extension of “Focus on the Family” organization, so there is a pro-nuclear family agenda to maintain at all expense, I suppose),
“But is it in the best interest of single believers who hope to marry some day to attend such churches [that stop relentlessly sermonizing and focusing on children and marriage]?”
My answer is YES it is. HELL YES.
The extreme family (marriage and kids)-centric outlook of most churches is what is driving singles away in the first place.
If you hope for singles to meet at church (and then marry), one has to get them to attend, which naturally means removing aspects they find hurtful or a turn-off.
And singles are not going to bother showing up to attend if their current needs and current status (which is singlehood) is being ignored.
Or, when the needs and issues of the single are not being ignored, they, or the singles themselves, are usually being insulted, as is the case in some churches who make marriage sound more biblical, proper, or better than singlehood, or they make singlehood sound abnormal (which is what Boundless does, especially in regards for singleness over the age of 30).
Some churches, and some Christians, elevate marriage to such an absurd degree to the point they make singleness sound bad, weird, shameful, un-biblical, or disgraceful.
I do want to get married – but the way to get me to show up to your church and meet a single Christian man at your church (if such a creature even exists?) is once I get in the church door, treat me with just as much attention and respect as you do the marrieds.
Ignoring me, or ignoring what I go through as a single, gives me no incentive to return to your church (or any church that operates this way), Ms. Watters.
Your church can offer as many pro- marriage rallies, pro- parenting seminars, and pot luck suppers for “families” as they wish, but if they keep ignoring my status in life as a single, it’s very wounding, infuriating, and annoying – and I won’t be back.
Or, if your church insults me by (including but not limited to), (and yes, some Christian writers and publications have indeed mentioned or done the following, I am not fabricating this),
-also gives me no incentive to return to your church. That’s the way it is.
The fact is that the never-relenting beating on the pro-marriage, pro-parenting drum by preachers and church laity can, and has, driven older singles away from the church.
You writing your editorial saying churches should keep on beating the same pro-marriage (pro- kids) drum is not going to rectify this, and it is not the way to address the issue.
Watters believes that downplaying the amount of attention marriage receives in churches (for the sake of making singles feel more welcome) would mean that churches would somehow be elevating singlehood to a preferred, super-spiritual status, and that this would be harmful to marriage. Again, I have no idea how she arrives at this conclusion.
Maybe Watters believes that cutting the amount of time and attention lavished on marriage (by Christians or by local churches) would mean treating the institution itself as unimportant, but that is not necessarily so. A church or a preacher can still easily uphold marriage as being biblical and wonderful – but they do not have to do so by preaching on the topic practically every single Sunday, which has been the norm the past few decades.
Singles are not asking for married people, and for the topic of marriage itself, to be totally ignored by churches, nor are we asking marriage to be insulted or put down. Most of us singles want to be married too.
We older singles are asking for equal time and equal respect, not for preferential treatment. Why is this such a hard concept for Watters and those like her to grasp?
Instead of a church offering a six- week marriage series, for example, why not cut it down to two or three weeks? Or, why not devote a six- week singles series in addition to the six- week marriage one? (Click on “more” below to read the rest of this post)
From The Atlantic (I’m not in complete agreement with all views on other issues by the woman who wrote this:)
Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy
[Article opens by mentioning former Nebraska state law that allowed parents to drop off their children with no legal repercussion; was meant to protect newborns, but an age limit was not stated in the law]
….A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family — nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.
….On November 21, 2008, the last day that the safe haven law was in effect for children of all ages, a mother from Yolo County, California, drove over 1,200 miles to the Kimball County Hospital in Nebraska where she left her 14-year-old son.
What happened in Nebraska raises the question: If there were no consequences, how many of us would give up our kids?
….Whether it’s because of hardship or not, many Americans are giving up on parenthood.
In February 2009, someone calling herself Ann logged onto the website Secret Confessions and wrote three sentences: “I am depressed. I hate being a mom. I also hate being a stay at home mom too!” Over three years later, the thread of comments is still going strong with thousands of responses — the site usually garners only 10 or so comments for every “confession.” Our anonymous Ann had hit a nerve.
Continue reading “Article from The Atlantic: Not Wanting Kids is Normal”
(Please click the “more” link to read the entire post)
I found a blog called “The Wartburg Watch” about a year ago while doing a web search on some topic or another, and then forgot about it, until I found it again about a week ago.
Here is the link to the Wartburg Watch blog:
In this post, I discuss (sometimes only very briefly), Reformed Theology (Calvinism), gender roles (complementarianism), Young Earth Creationism, Christian speaker Beth Moore, New Evangelicalism (i.e., how important is “secondary doctrine”), spiritual abuse in churches, and other subjects, and how they are addressed at the WW blog.
I do agree with many of the positions taken on the blog by Dee and Deb, who started the blog.
I agree with them on many of the topics they post about, such as authoritarianism and Neo-Calvinism are problematic in Christianity; that the very un-loving tone Christians take towards others can at times cause other Christians to walk away from the Christian faith; and that patriarchy and gender complementarianism are unbiblical and sexist teachings that are doing damage to many women and to the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also agree, to a point, with the blog owners that some Christians wrongly make issues that most would consider secondary into primary- level concerns, which can lead to needless divisions among Christians. (On the other hand, I sometimes get a little bit nervous by Christians who start saying love always trumps doctrine).
The blog owners are also very concerned about spiritual abuse in churches and how to prevent or rectify it, and they are also rightly concerned with the sexual abuse of children by pastors and priests.
So on those fronts, I do recommend their blog.
I do however, have one or two concerns or disagreements with the ladies behind that blog.
Deb and Dee seem concerned that Christians should be respectful and loving towards other Christians, even when disagreeing on secondary issues – which is a fine and laudable goal.
However, I don’t see them fully demonstrating that philosophy in regards to secondary issues such as YEC (Young Earth Creationism).
Repeatedly at their blog, I see much disdain for YEC. And I don’t pick up that the disdain is due to their assertion that some YECs are trying to push its relevance.
They claim that some YEC advocates conflate YEC with salvation or the Gospel itself, which I have not seen (though I am not denying that some YECs may do this, but I don’t think it’s as rampant as they make it appear – I have never personally seen or read of an occasion of a YEC saying “Agreement with YEC = necessary for salvation”).
About the only name I have seen them cite as far as YECs, especially famous YECs, who elevate YEC to salvation-level proportions is Ken Ham. (Ham’s site, Answers Outreach)
I’ve read Ham’s material before and have seen him interviewed on TV shows about his views on evolution and creation.
I have personally not seen Ham equate YEC to the Gospel itself.
I have only seen Ham make an argument along the lines that questioning YEC (which usually involves denying a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or allowing a secular / naturalistic-materialistic worldview to color one’s reading of the Bible, including the book of Genesis) can lead people (young people in particular, who are immersed with secular views on evolution during school and college) to question other portions of the Bible.
That is, rejecting a literal, six- day creation interpretation in turn can, or may, ultimately lead them to question if the Gospel is true and accurate, or cause them to wonder if other aspects of the Bible are true.
I think Ham actually has a decent and legitimate point there, and I don’t see that as necessarily “equating YEC to the Gospel,” or to making a belief in it a requirement for salvation.
In one thread on one blog page at Wartburg Watch, one of the blog owners seemed to ridicule or mock YEC Christians who believe that dinosaurs may have existed at the time of Noah and that dinosaurs were led on to Noah’s Ark, or that this could have been a possibility.
This is not the specific thread I am thinking of, but is close to it in content and tone:
As a YEC, I and other YECs do not “reject science,” we do not “reject reason,” and we are not “anti science,” as we are so often depicted as (including in the Wartburg Watch post above, sadly).
Most of us YECs merely disagree with other people over scientific topics, or how to approach scientific topics.
Disagreeing with someone else on the topic of evolution or the age of the earth does not mean we YECs are “anti science” or “anti reason.” To keep saying we YECs are “anti science” is a strawman and is mischaracterizing our views and beliefs.
In the discussion on YEC, one comment from the Wartburg Watch says (which is again at this blog page):
“No matter what the anointed would have us believe, the age of the earth, complementarianism, the size of our church, and the governing structure of the church are not primary issues. Folks, we have been given a brain. We need to use it.”
I do not believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old or that God used evolution to create and change life forms.
From this blog person’s comments at Wartburg Watch, one would assume that those who do not agree that the earth is millions/billions of years old have not been given brains or do not use their brains. I’m unsure if the bloggers mean that, or if it was an unfortunate choice of words.
(I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some Christian Old Earth advocates and believers of theistic evolution who make the age of the earth or evolution a primary issue, who tell YECs they are unsaved and going to hell.)
This comment is from a blog owner of Wartburg Watch (at the same page)…
“So what was his [the YEC person] solution [when confronted with material that disagreed with YEC views]? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because ‘he couldn’t take it.'”
…Was somewhat uncharitable. Not all YECs are “afraid” to look at the opposition’s view points nor do all YEC advocates recoil in horror, in disbelief, or go into denial after having read work critical of YEC views.
I have read arguments for both sides of the evolution and age of Earth debates in the past, and I remain a YEC.
I was subjected to years of secular macro-evolution education in public schools and a bit in college and was told as a student that the earth is millions and millions of years old, but I still remain unconvinced for old-earth or macro evolution beliefs.
I have listened to Christian scientific personality Hugh Ross, who believes in theistic evolution (or some variety of it) and in an old earth, many times on Christian shows over the past fifteen years, arguing in favor of an old earth view (Hugh Ross’ site, Reasons To Believe).
Ross seems like a very nice man (and very intelligent, too – though he can, in my view, get a bit prickly or condescending at times when debating YECs), and I have no doubt he believes in Jesus as much as I do, but I disagree with him on these particular issues.
I did not find the “old earth” arguments, or arguments in favor of evolution, by Ross or by other Christians, journals, blogs, or TV shows I’ve read or watched compelling, nor was I convinced by secular sources who argue for old earth and for Darwinism.
I am college-educated and made mostly straight A’s while in college, so I am not a hick or a dummy. I made a “B” in a math class (college algebra), a “B” in one science class, and a “C” in one science lab course – everything else, I got an “A” (including one or two other college- level science courses).
I have read material that questions and criticizes the YEC and Intelligent Design view, both by Christians (who believe in theistic evolution and an old age of the earth view) and by atheists – and I am still a YEC.
There seems to be a belief held (and it is condescending), by Old Age proponents, that if only a YEC is confronted with criticisms of YECism by old-earth proponents, we will abandon our views of YEC, because, by golly, Fact, Science!, and Truth are so obviously on the side of the intelligent, educated, old-earth proponents…
And that further, it seems there is also a belief, or attitude, that simple-minded, doofus, red-neck, inbred, wrongly- paranoid- of- liberal- tinged public school system education Young Earth Creationists (who also watch NASCAR, marry their first cousins, have only one tooth, and keep broken washing machines on their front lawns, next to the pink, plastic flamingos) simply cannot challenge or refute anti-YEC teachings, or we are so weak minded, we will faint upon hearing them.
If the situation about the origins of life, creation of the earth and of mankind were as simple as all that, there would not be an old-earth / young-earth / evolution debate at all; all Christians would have converted to old-earth / theistic evolution perspectives many years ago. Obviously both sides have excellent points, intelligent people, and facts to back up their positions.
Dee and Deb of the Wartburg Watch blog may not be questioning the salvation of a Christian who believes dinosaurs co-existed with Noah, but in my view, it is no less alienating, or uncharitable to imply people who do believe that way are rubes, out- of- touch, un-scientific, anti reason, ignorant, or that all YECs everywhere equate YEC to the Gospel – and I do pick up that tone in some of the posts at the WW blog on this issue. I find that baffling, since both ladies usually seem very sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns.
I am a YEC myself. I do not believe a person has to be YEC or agree with it to “be saved.” (Click the “more” link below to read the remainder of this post…)
Driscoll wrote(source: “Single Like Jesus”),
So this is a growing number, because people are waiting longer to marry. In 1960 the average man was 23, the average woman was 20, upon marriage; today the average man is 27, the average woman is 23. And so people are waiting longer to marry – but is that because they love Jesus and are maintaining their purity and using all of their time to memorize verses? No. Because they’re all having sex – a new F-word is fornicating, for some of you, and that is sex before marriage. We dealt with that last week. And what singles tend to do is wait longer to get married but have sex until they get married, to the degree that 41 percent of all women will have cohabitated – shacked up, lived with a boyfriend – before marriage at some point in their life; 4 out of 10 women.
Notice he wrote “they’re all having sex.” Driscoll is rude and presumptive.
I am a Christian woman, early 40s, never been married, never had sex, and have never co-habitated. The same is true for roughly one third of Christians over 30 who have never married (see the book “Quitting Church” by author Julia Duin for citations and stats on that). Get your facts straight
Driscoll He opens that same page by saying,
This section of Scripture remains wildly misunderstood. Singleness is not ideal, marriage should be honored by all. Practically, however, there are seasons and reasons that provide exceptions to the rule of marriage for some people.
No Christian disputes that “marriage should be honored by all” but then, so too should singleness. (The Bible in fact says that both singleness and marriage are ideal. Paul goes so far to say that the single have more undivided attention to spend on the Gospel where as the married are more consumed with pleasing their spouse.)
The married in the Christian community are supposed to honor the singles, too, not just vice versa as Driscoll states; this is not a one-way street.
One reason so many older singles stay away from American churches is that there is far too much emphasis on and “honoring” of the married already going on in churches.
Singles are ignored. The only time pastors or the rest of the church pay attention to singles is when they expect the singles to cater to the married couples but the married couples are never expected to meet the needs of the singles.
Driscoll, like many other Christians, mistakenly think it’s oh- so- simple and easy for any Christian to get a mate: why, if you just get rid of your “baggage,” fix your flaws, lose ten pounds, or overcome your “issues,” you can instantly merit a spouse.
Sorry, Driscoll, but no, it does not work that way.
God does not reward or grant spouses based upon how “perfect” or “responsible” or how “together” one is.
If God expected perfection (or near perfection) before allowing Christians to marry (which is what Driscoll is advocating in essence), then absolutely nobody would be married.
Continue reading “Mark Driscoll pastor of Mars Hill – views on singleness”
In one or two verses in the New Testament, we are told that whatever we pray to God for (and ask in the name of Christ), we will receive.
I take that at face value. Of course, it more often than not hasn’t worked. I pray, pray, pray for things in the name of Christ and believe, but don’t receive.
One annoying tendency I see of some pastors, Christians, Biblical studies, etc. is to say you cannot take the Bible at face value.
I’m pretty sure I saw a footnote in a study Bible that said when Christ said whatever you pray for in His name He will do that He did not “really” mean it, or he did not really mean to say “anything.” The Bible footnote in the study area of that Bible said Christ was referring to only spreading the Gospel message. However, I don’t see anything in the context that indicates that.
Continue reading “On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name”
Married Pervy 50+ Year Old Pastor (Jack Schaap ) Diddles 16 Year Old Kid – Married Christians Not More Mature or Sexually Pure than Un-Married Christians
Below is a link to a story about a 50-something preacher, Jack Schaap, who was carrying on a sexual affair with a teen aged girl from his congregation.
A lot of Christians like to tell un-married Christians that un-married Christians are not as mature or responsible as married people are.
Even if you are age 40 or older, a lot of married Christians assume you, a Christian single, have the maturity or life experience of a typical 15 year old kid.
A lot of preachers assume that un married Christians have raging hormones and have a different sex partner every night of the month. They never seem to figure out that marriage does not make people immune from engaging in sexual sin.
Married people are not always immune from immature behavior or selfishness, either.
This originally comes from
Preacher Jack Schaap–pastor of FBC Hammond Admits To Having Sex with Teen Girl Repeatedly
Jack Schaap–pastor of FBC Hammond, IN–was fired after admitting to an affair with a 16-year-old girl.
Being a megachurch pastor, he probably qualifies as an Alpha, and power does tend to be the ultimate aphrodisiac.
But still…he is married, and has almost 40 years on the girl with whom he was fornicating.
Oh, and he has written books on dating…
This entry was posted on Friday, August 3rd, 2012
This same pervy pastor also made this disgusting video, where he simulated masturbation from the pulpit, in front of people, including kids:
Marriage does NOT make a person more mature or sexually pure than an un-married person, as that video and news story demonstrate.