Dallas pastor to congregants: How does seven days of sex sound?
posted at 7:00 pm on November 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The most gimmicky, media-baiting attempt at Christian rebranding since that guy from GodMen gave us Jesus by way of Robert Bly. Reminds me of the scene in “Hoosiers” when Gene Hackman finally figures out a way to motivate his very devout sixth man. “God wants you on the floor” indeed.
Exit question: What are the married beta males supposed to do? And yes, they do exist. Theoretically.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I don’t blame you. Until I moved here I associated Arlington with Virginia as well.
It’s a fairly nice place, though I preferred living in North Dallas.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM
1) Yes, I rejected and continue to reject the idea that every sermon must feed every person in the congregation. My point is that since it is so very easy to feed MANY in the congregation, it’s wrong to not make that effort.
2) In this statement I’m NOT embracing that idea. I’m simply showing how a possibly large portion of his flock could have been alienated by stressing intimacy as sex. And since that alienation could have EASILY been avoided, THAT’S the point I’m making.
3) I admitted that maybe the pastor DID discuss intimacy in a larger vein, but as of yet no one seems to want to provide a link to the video or the transcript. Interesting that.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM
If you truly wanted to defend the man, you would make a link readily and easily available right to the video or transcript.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
If you truly wanted to see it you could. I can’t access videos at work. Someone else from the church has already said you could find it on their website. I have to wonder what your motivation is for not wanting to find it yourself before you demonize someone.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
That’s quite a blanket statement, and I’m sure it’s not true for all of them. But that wasn’t my point either. My point is that they should, if they physically can.
No, not the importance but the ability, and I discussed that as well. If couples can’t find the time to have sex or can’t physically have sex, then that’s a completely different issue.
I disagree.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM
The happiest couples I know are … let’s say… the most active. Regardless of age or physical hinderances.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Hopefully i dont get in trouble for this:
http://www.fellowshipchurch.com
psv on November 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM
My motivation is simply to see if you are willing and able to put your money where your mouth is.
You claim you know what was said and yet also claim not to attend the church nor can you/will you provide a video link (which I’ve found, BTW).
Interesting, very interesting.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:12 PM
You can disagree all you want, but that doesn’t change the truth of the matter.
As couples get older sex lessens in importance and frequency as other forms of intimacy grow in importance and frequency.
It’s not an opinion – it’s life.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Actually, psv, here is a direct link, although it should be noted that the video there starts off with several minutes of the various press coverage this sermon has created.
The video is over 45 minutes long, so I’m hoping that the actual message is in there somewhere.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Look here. I told you I can’t access videos at work. I’m sorry this sermon upset you so bad that you’ve lost your mind.
I posted that link earlier. He just didn’t want to do any research before he demonized the guy.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Agreed.
True, sex within a marriage commitment is Biblical, but that does not mean you shout it from the roof-tops, or in this case, the “pulpit”.
Leave that for the people for whom sex has become their religion and pleasure their God.
One reason I am glad I am not a part of the emergent church movement.
Sterling Holobyte on November 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM
That statement equally applies if you truly wanted to critique the man. More so when you imply that writing and presenting a sermon on a topic as taboo and complex as sexual intimacy is a walk in the park.
You seem to form A LOT of critiques and opinions on a clip that is just over a minute long and until I see a YouTube sermon on sexual intimacy from ‘Relgious_Zealot’, my opinion won’t be changing.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You can get there from either place. The message is there, you seem pretty set not to hear it though.
And, if you havent watch the whole series, you will miss some points as he builds on it from the previous week.
His main emphasis this week was a challenge to have sexual relations with your spouse for 7 days. In doing that, it will help you connect not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually as well.
It has helped my wife and i already get a little better connected, as instead of diving into our nights activities, we spend this time talking and being together first. That is how it has helped us, and its something (not the sex part, not all the time) we will continue, the talking and connecting.
You have a fairly strong opinion on this from what i have read (and i havent read it all). I posted on the previous page a general answer from reading some of your posts.
You should respond to that.
psv on November 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
A lot of the criticism of the “7 days of sex” is that most churches who have posed this challenge have done 40 days. At least us locals have been tossing that around. I think the series is great – my husband and I went to a “basics of marriage” class at my church when we first got married. We were shocked to see that most of the people there were middleaged and on the brink of divorce. There are a lot of hurting marriages out there. I know that just hearing about it on the news has caused many people to discuss intimacy at length with their own spouses. In that aspect it has benefitted non-members as well.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Yes, please continue to preach about how awful it is for me to “insult” you.
I can’t imagine how you can see with that huge plank in your eye.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Yeah, THAT’S it.
THAT’S why I linked to the video and am currently watching it.
Yup, boy you guys are really good at this mind reading bit.
/sarc
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:32 PM
You ignore what I say then attack me for not saying it. You ignore what I say and then accuse me of having poor reading comprehension skills. You have accused me of doing the very same things you have done. You have thrown the Bible at me and used it to insult me – a fellow believer. Yes, you have lost your mind.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I double checked your “answer” and found nothing of note to respond to.
Not that there wasn’t anything good in it, just nothing in it that really addressed what I’ve been talking about.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:35 PM
That’s a new point, and it’s illogical here. Many, in fact the majority, ARE fed by a sermon on increasing the frequency of sex in marriage.
A large portion? How many people too old to have frequent sex go to your church? I wasn’t aware that they represented a large portion of any church group and was given the distinct impression that they represented a small group at this church.
Well, now you have it.
Not for everyone, and it certainly doesn’t have to.
Maybe it’s yours but it won’t be mine.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I have neither ignored what you said nor have you given any reason for me not to state that you have poor reading comprehension.
Throughout this entire ‘discussion’ you have continually and deliberately misstated and misconstrued what I was saying.
You miss the nuance (”It has to do with a pastor doing his/her best to INCLUDE as many of his flock as possible during a message.”) and then restate it as an overgeneralized fact (”So every sermon should include every member of the flock”)
If you don’t like people questioning your reading comprehension skills, maybe you should work on improving them.
Thrown the Bible at you?
Um…
…you clearly are not thinking clearly. Maybe you need to step away for a little while and clear your head.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM
It’s not illogical – if one is not in a relationship, or can’t have sex or can’t have the frequency of sex that is being requested here, then they aren’t being fed.
How many people are too old to have sex every night for seven days?
Most of them (including some of the younger ones).
How about yours?
No, not for everyone, but for the vast majority of people.
Let me guess, you’re in your mid- to late-twenties and think you’ll be young and vigorous your entire life?
Come talk to me when you’re in your forties and have a couple of children and then let’s compare/contrast your sex life then to your sex life when you where in your 20’s.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
PSV – I can only find the last sermon on the site.
Is there some kind of archive there that holds older sermons?
BTW – so far there is nothing in this sermon about kinds and types of intimacy APART from sex. But it’s still early.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM
That is why it was a challenge. Even the pastor isnt sure he can do it all 7 days, although they are going to try. Yes, some younger couples will be able to pull it off, some older ones wont. A teaching leader in a bible study i attend is in Cuba this week… Travel plans, all sorts of reasons will be for people not to be able to complete the challenge. Do what you can, do as you are lead.
Religious_Zealot, from what i have read, your chief complaint seems to be that people wont be able to participate. Do i have that correct?
psv on November 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I have no major problems with the series (as I’ve stated several times).
I admire his courage to address the subject.
My concern here is not so much about “participation” (although that obviously has something to do with it), but that his message may alienate a significant number in his congregation for whom marital intimacy is something more than simply sex (or for whom sex is not physically or emotionally possible).
In fact, where I am right now in the sermon, he’s explicitly DENYING other forms of intimacy from this “sexperiment.”
It’s a message ideally suited for a ‘couples weekend’ or for a congregation full of 20- and 30-something couples.
But I think he’s doing some people a disservice by making it his Sunday morning message and by making it solely about sex.
Now, in some messages this can’t be avoided (talking about divorce, for instance).
However, it wouldn’t have taken much to expand his definition of intimacy to include those for whom sex is not the sole delimiter of intimacy.
The funny thing is that, in the end, this is a fairly mild criticism. Far from the “demonization” that some here have insinuated.
My other issues is that it is more of a gimmick than I would care for (again, a small criticism)…
…and that his push for 7 days of sex seems to be in violation of Paul’s teaching that the couple be the ultimate arbiter of when and how often they have sex.
But again, I have no major problems with the message and I think it is a perfectly wonderful message for a ‘couples retreat.’
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Those who aren’t in a relationship (marriage, specifically), will still need this information should they ever be in a relationship.
But seriously, what you’re saying here is akin to saying that sermons on parenthood are wrong because they exclude those who don’t have kids.
I disagree very strongly. It’s just one week, not a whole year.
I don’t have one here, though in my home church I’d be surprised if we had more than 10% who cannot have sex once a day for seven days.
It’s not that we don’t have older people there, it’s that they’re active people. Many of them are in the JC Riders, a sort of biker gang that came up whenever the pastor bought a large bike. They’re all healthy enough to travel for weeks on a bike and presumably healthy enough to enjoy sex even if they have to slow it down a little.
At least you’re now agreeing that there are exceptions.
I’m 26 yes, but no I’m not even vigorous now. It’s mostly due to a poor diet, I believe, but when I was in high school I could barely handle marching band without having to lie down.
But sex doesn’t have to take your breath away.
I know the sex drive decreases, at least for women, after having children, but that’s something that many people work to overcome and do so because they love their spouse and understand that they need the unique intimacy that sex brings.
Yes, it’s not the only intimacy. I love just holding my husband and laying in bed with him and sometimes play fighting. All of those feed certain needs we both have, but they don’t replace sex.
I know that sex naturally takes a backseat in any relationship to other things. I’m only arguing that it doesn’t have to and probably shouldn’t.
What does it hurt to try and make it more of a focus? Why not try sex for seven days straight and see if it’s something that could make your marriage even a little bit stronger?
I don’t really see what’s so negative here. If a couple can’t do it every day for seven days, then fine. At least they tried.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Technically he said that neither person should deny the other unless they both decide not to have sex. Far too often in marriages one person is saying no to the other. That’s not the same, and I think those are the people this preacher is most trying to reach, and I think those are the majority of any congregation, including those who are not married but need to hear this anyway.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM
1) Yes, this is important information for singles.
2) You seem to be taking a page from Dopplegankers play book. I’ve never said the sermon was WRONG. I said that it could have (and SHOULD HAVE) been easily expanded to include those for whom sex is not the sole arbiter of intimacy.
3) If, in your congregation, you have a decent sized group of people who have no children, or who have lost their children, or who would have loved to have children but couldn’t or who will never have any more children – then one should be very, very careful and sensitive how one goes about preaching about parenthood.
I note that you are in your late twenties (as I suspected).
Thus you really shouldn’t be speaking as an expert about older relationships.
Considering physical things like menstruation, sickness and disabilities…
…and considering how much of a concerted effort most would have to put in in order to “clear their schedules”…
…I would easily bet that most of the church couldn’t do this (although there would be a very high percentage of people who could do it 5 or 6 times).
Maybe it doesn’t HAVE to, but it’s simply a natural part of life.
The heat of passion found so easily in our younger years becomes the hot coals of mature love wherein sex is still important, just not the sole indicator of intimacy nor the health of the marriage.
And I never said I had a problem with the idea of married couples making a more concerted effort to have more sex.
I just have my own disagreement with the placement of such a message in a context where not everyone thinks sex is the only way to measure marital health.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
The more I listen to his sermon, the more I grow uneasy with his insistence that sex is the best and only way to gauge the health of a marriage.
I’d be willing to make a more general statement – that the frequency of sex SPEAKS toward the health of a marriage (and that sex is not only important, but virtually necessary to have a happy, healthy marriage).
But I believe he’s discounting many other things necessary for the health of a marriage (communication being foremost).
Oh, and not to mention that his material is a cross between Bill Cosby and Dr. Ruth!
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Maybe that was my attempt to clarify what you are saying, as I believe that everyone attending the series can get SOMETHING out of the sermons. Everyone has sermons they identify more with than others.
Yep. I understand what you’re saying, just challenging you. You seem to react very cruelly to being questioned.
You have used the spec-in-your-eye verse to insult me. That’s like those little snotty baptist girls who say “I’ll pray for you”.
I have asked you to research before you condemn a man’s preaching based on a tiny clip and you have responded terribly. I saw nothing wrong with questioning you as you are no more an absolute religious authority than than I am. I encourage you to think about how awful you’ve been to a fellow believer over a dispute as to whether this pastor was adequately appealing to his flock.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM
No, I get a bit exasperated in discussing things with a person who seems to go out of their way to not understand what I am saying.
I really could care less if you agree or don’t agree with me.
And you keep telling me how much I hurt your feelings, but you continue to deliberately misstate what I’ve said and to hurl insults back.
Forgive me if I find that a bit disingenuous.
And, BTW, if you think I’m crazy (lost my mind), what does that say about you who keeps trying to talk to me?
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I never said you hurt my feelings. I’m trying over and over to discuss your unfair judgment of this man. Just trying to figure out what your angle is – what you have to gain by judging someone without doing any research. Seems that this goes against the very tenets of judgment in the Bible.
Obviously you think differently of people than I do – as I don’t think believers would be unfed by this sermon. Many others have argued this point.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
-sigh-
Yet you continue to complain about my “insults.”
Whatever.
1) My “judgment” is that the man did a good job, but he could have/SHOULD have done better. I hardly consider that to be “unfair.”
2) If you are still “trying to figure out” my angle, then give up. I’ve explained it numerous times, if you haven’t “got it” by know, that’s because you don’t WANT to get it.
3) You probably should study your Bible more if you really think this quite small criticism of the sermon goes against the “very tenets of judgment in the Bible.” I have not once said what should be done to the pastor (i.e. given a punishment). I have simply ‘judged’ (i.e. discerned), that he limited his focus too narrowly. And if you don’t think the Bible wants us to ‘discern’ right and wrong, good and bad, then you REALLY REALLY need to actually read the Bible.
Again with the misstatement.
Here’s an easy test – please link or cut and paste anywhere that I’ve said that no believers would be fed (’believers would be unfed’).
You can’t do it.
I said that not ALL believers will be fed by this message (and they won’t since the pastor pointedly equates ONLY sex with intimacy).
Your continued insistence to misstate my points just goes to show that I was right to question your reading comprehension.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Your initial judgment was made without adequate evidence. We are called to make righteous, true, and informed judgments. I continually stated that intimacy was mentioned, as did people who attend the church. I also believe that all believers can get something from this message. This information was disregarded even in your latest statement.
You seem to have a problem with the guy that cannot be rectified even with information from people who were actually there. I’ve done far too much alt-tabbing today. I’m sorry you don’t approve of this message. I do wish you’d given it a chance. I know that it has caused more discussion than any sermon in recent weeks among the entire metroplex, not just in the church, and for that I am thankful.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
If it should have been different, then aren’t you saying in it’s current presentation it is wrong?
And how is a preacher of a large church supposed to know such intimate details?
I don’t think anyone should be speaking as an expert about relationships unless that person has extensively studied them. I’ve never claimed to be an expert. I just don’t agree with your generalizations.
Menstruation is a young person thing. Old people don’t have that concern. And there’s no physical reason for a couple to abstain from sex just because of it.
I find this an unconvincing argument. Couples should at least try make that time for each other especially when it’s difficult to do so.
If they can do five or six, then they can do one or two more. It’s just one week, not every week.
Yes, it’s just as natural as couples drifting apart and finding they no longer love each other.
I’ve said already that it’s never the sole indicator of anything.
I don’t think he’s saying it’s the only way but that it is a way to measure marital health.
I’m under the impression that that’s exactly what he’s saying.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Why specifically Baptist? I’m not offended, just curious.
And while I get why you use girls here (I’d generally think female as well for this example), at Hot Air, those types all seem to be men who have no problem judging others as not being Christian enough because of disagreements over how to interpret scripture.
There’s even one here who flat out accuses me of adultery based on some jokes I’ve exchanged with someone here.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I should clarify – I’m a 28 year old woman who was raised in the Baptist church. In youth group there were always girls who would say they would pray for people and then snicker about it. It decreased a bit once we got into college. They eventually grow into the bitter ol’ biddies that act tacky.
I think we’re around the same age? Same gender. The whole exchange with Zealot just reminded me of those future biddies haha. I have noticed that he-man judgment today for the first time. I haven’t exactly been active in the blogs until recently. I’ll look forward to more of that :)
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I’m sure this phoenomenon is common in any social circle.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Been working a new job and no time to post…
I will repeat that the “church” has become bigger and more important than the message. The tactics that I’ve seen to recruit youth into the church are unacceptable to me and I believe were used to get the real money in the church…their parents. Many parents were longtime members at other churches in the area until their children became involved in the “social environment” of Fellowship church. Those parents left their churches and followed their children to Fellowship. I feel that this was part of the design in recruiting the youth. A pretty smart marketing ploy, but when you’re representing a church it’s pretty deceptive in my opinion.
And, by the way, do any of the locals recognize one of the faces in the interviews of the parishoners on the news reports? I have to wonder if it was by chance or planned? Nothing against the person…I happen to think he’s great, but he just happened to be right there available to the media? Know who I mean?
Whippet on November 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
One thing I have learned form reading all of these is that Religious_Zealot has way too much time on his or her hands, and instead of criticizing someone else’s church and “preaching” down to others, he should spend more time in HIS word. Preaching down to people only turns them off, and it is one of the main reasons people who stopped going to church give when asked. Something I hope you think about.
Regardless, Dopple I love Prestonwood also, and we live very close to it, and if my wife and I find our public schools too liberal for our liking, we may be sending our kids to Prestonwood Christian Academy.
I only pray for Zealot’s sake that he or she is not stuck in a church that is small, uncreative, and dying as I once was before I found Fellowship.
ReaganConservative3 on November 19, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3