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 Next »
As some of we Long Island thugs say:
“GO GETCHA SOME BREAD!”
blatantblue on November 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I’m suggesting that coming up with grand plans for facilities and trusting in God to come up with the funding to make it a reality is great to an extent because it is a vision. At some point, the question that needs to be continually asked by both the leadership and congregation- is this expansion is being done for the greater glory of God or is this just a prestige and comfort thing. Some of the most successful congregations operate on a shoestring without any possibility of raising $17,000 let alone $17M. What does all that extra money provide in recognition that it all belongs to God and we are simply giving him back His own?
My personal view is that church building campaigns are mostly about adding to the convenience and comfort of those already attending rather than any real outreach to further Christ’s message among the non-believers and unchurched. It’s usually about adding classroom space for Sunday School or expanding the sanctuary so people have more room in the pews rather than building space for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or community outreach programs.
To a certain degree it’s fine for congregations truly in need of bigger facilities to expand but only to a degree. The Bible also tells us that a church that functions properly as a body of Christ will include members who continue to grow, mature, and reproduce themselves as a church in other places (the church has offspring by planting other churches). Instead of a $17M campaign to build bigger facilities, how about a smaller parent church who casts three $6M seeds out into the community to build three more communities of believers? Wouldn’t that also solve the need to increase space? What about sponsoring 17 or even 34 churches in the growing areas of Christiandom with seeds of $1M or $500K? In most parts of the world, $500K is far more a glory to God than a $17M prestige project for an overcrowded church.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
IMO, part of the covenantal relationship with God that a man and woman enter into is all that needs to be said about the temperature, tone and tenor of the relationship. It’s none of the pastor’s business!
At times, pastors may get involved on the margins but that’s only to assist where a man/woman is falling short of the covenant and pray for a restoration of a righteous relationship with God- never to dictate in the manner spelled out in these videos.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
hope my hubby doesn’t hear about this. :)
Ozark_sky on November 17, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Shouldn’t that be “I’m up FOR it.”
Mallard T. Drake on November 17, 2008 at 10:50 PM
“A God-given things that He gave us.”
A novel way to increase membership 9 months from next Sunday.
ricelchew on November 17, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Song of Solomon is full of tantalizing language, it’s not like that church invented it. I hope this preacher is as uncompromising and fearless about the rest of God’s Truth, I have a feeling he is.
Jelly Toast….spot on!
jjjen on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Highhops…we have recently planted 3 churches but to be honest I think our pastor, elders and staff started out with a good idea tht got out of hand. I think God didn’t move enough people to buy into the expansion. I always think that the more people who join, the more offerings and therefore more money to grow… not more space so now more will come…
CCRWM on November 17, 2008 at 10:58 PM
And tithing members 18 years after that.
In light of your comments, gotta share this story. While growing up, our family which included four kids ended up in a very Catholic neighborhood in Maryland. Although we were Protestant, everybody just assumed and acted like we were RC because we had more kids than most of the Catholic neighbors!
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM
I’m glad to learn your church is sowing seeds. Please don’t take the following as personal criticism because it isn’t.
The more people who come to accept Christ in their lives, the greater opportunity for stewardship by communities of believers. I think that might be a better way of expressing the idea that more seats in pews equates to bigger budgets.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Highhopes…we’re saying the same thing…I’m just saying it in between looking over Science homework…and making sure my husband, who has been moving water pipes inside the wall versus in the cabinet through the floor (don’t ask me why ) eats…
CCRWM on November 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM
:D
Beastie!
It will be the Bald and Balder Wedding. (My man shaves his head too.)
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:25 PM
When God gives a pastor the responsibility of preaching/teaching to a congregation of 20,000 he should be training Christians in God’s Word. In church I want to be taught God’s word so I can live my life according to His Word. I want my church experience to draw me closer to the LORD.
Ozark_sky on November 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
The conventional wisdom about Puritans has it pretty much exactly backwards. They considered a healthy sexual relationship between husband and wife to be quite important. In fact, if the wife was unsatisfied with the husband’s, um, “output”, she could go to the town elders to complain, and they would intercede.
mcg on November 17, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Ozark_sky: I do not disagree. Now, if you want to be taught ALL of God’s word, including 1 Cor 7:3-5, then this particular sermon should not bother you.
mcg on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 PM
1 Cor 7:3-5: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
mcg on November 17, 2008 at 11:39 PM
+infinity
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:39 PM
That’s not a sermon – that’s a marketing gimmick.
And that’s not teaching the Word of God – that’s a mass marriage counseling session.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM
There are 52 sermons a year, year after year, if he wants to spend one talking about the marraige bed…so what …talk about keeping things fresh and interesting…
CCRWM on November 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM
You missed a spot:
But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Despite the unscriptural traditions of American denominations who worship marriage as a Christian staple, marriage is clearly not the goal of the Gospel. Paul offers it as an acceptable concession for undisciplined men and women who would sinfully fornicate if they had no spouse.
But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
TMK on November 18, 2008 at 12:13 AM
From 1Cor 7
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
It’s in the Bible baby!
Mojave Mark on November 18, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Teaching that sex is good, vital and necessary for a marriage IS scriptural.
And if that was what he was teaching, then he WOULD have been teaching the Word of God.
Instead, he was telling the married in his flock to have sex for seven consecutive days in order to have a better, healthier marriage.
Was he wrong for doing so? No.
Was it un-scriptural? Not really, but he WAS pushing the boundaries.
Was he preaching the Word of God? No. He was conducting a marriage counseling session.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:36 AM
1) Paul’s writings are called the Epistles. They are NOT part of the Gospels (which are limited to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
2) The scripture you quoted is not Christ’s teachings, but Paul’s opinion. And it should be noted that Paul was single.
3) Neither marriage nor singleness is cited in the Gospels as a goal.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:42 AM
I love this site…where else could you get this discussion in such a mature and informed way?
CCRWM on November 18, 2008 at 12:54 AM
That is so blasphemous, I don’t even know where to begin…
“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I’ll just paste this and hope you’ll not call the Holy Spirit a liar anymore.
TMK on November 18, 2008 at 1:09 AM
So says he on Day One!
Tzetzes on November 18, 2008 at 1:49 AM
God made sex—-man markets it.
sigh
John The Baptist on November 18, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Then what are you doing posting here. You should either be at work, in the sack, or praying….
Bradky on November 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM
Is it just me, or does the last wife in the second video look like she’s about to cry she’s so scared?
“Sex” isn’t always going to make you happy. Not even in marriage. I learned long ago, it’s not “quantity” but “quality”. I learned that if I didn’t beg for sex every day, the two days a week I did get it (Sunday morning and Tuesday night), kinkiness was involved, and it was much better.
SuperManGreenLantern on November 18, 2008 at 7:11 AM
..Hasn’t this been done before, anyway?
Reaps on November 18, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Why stop at seven?
There are 365 days in a year :-)
Good Lt on November 18, 2008 at 7:46 AM
This has been done before but most pastors call for 40 days of mclovin’. It encourages couples to not only built intimacy (no, not just sex) but also, if you’re fully satisfied in your marriage how likely are you to stray? Your pastor gives you advice about many personal matters, why not this?
I don’t like the dude. I’ve heard weird stories about his messages from friends who’ve visited. I live nearby and only get near there to go to Bass Pro shop! :p
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Here:
and here:
Is a great example of using the bible as a weapon. Taking scripture out of context to prove a point.
and ending with this pathetic statement:
This is why Christians are ridiculed, because of this type of scripture dueling.
Thanks for your “hope”…I think what I will do is paste this and just shake my head, it is so sad, so so sad…
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 7:58 AM
You should begin by actually READING and STUDYING the scripture.
Your first mistake was quoting 1 Corinthians (a Pauline Epistle) and claiming it was part of the Gospels.
Your second mistake is missing all the times Paul says “I say” as opposed to “the Lord says.”
Your third mistake is thinking that you’re some kind of ‘expert’ on the scripture – you’re not. Nowhere does Jesus teach that the “goal” is to be single.
He certainly points out that some will remain single. But Jesus also upholds the teaching that, for others (most?), marriage is God’s plan for them:
(emphasis mine)
I might accept an argument that the church OVER emphasizes marriage and UNDER emphasizes the gift of singleness.
But it is flat out wrong to claim that the “goal” of the scriptures is for us to remain single.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM
So, what exactly is the problem here?
Sounds good to me.
Married: check
Sex: Check
Love the Lord: Check
I’m curious to what the rest of his message is.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I disagree.
From the little I’ve gathered, his point was that a healthy sex life is a necessary facet in a couples spiritual life. Marriage is symbolic of Jesus’ relationship with the church. Having a dysfunctional sex life restricts a couple from achieving the relationship that God wants.
It’s a crucial point that many Pastors gloss over.
It was a little over the top, but I didn’t view this as a marriage counselling lesson.
Just my two cents.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Reject away, but he’s absolutely right.
A dysfunctional sex life represents a dysfunctional marriage. A dysfunctional marriage makes it difficult for a couple to achieve the relationship with God that He desires.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Well, to be honest, I think this would have been an AWESOME marriage counseling session!
In fact, if this was a speech he gave at some kind of “couples retreat” I would have absolutely no problems with it.
As it is, the problems I DO have with it being given as a sermon are fairly minor and have more to do with my very strongly held personal belief about what the role of a pastor is and what his/her responsibility is during the time of the sermon.
I believe that the one of the biggest scourges facing Christianity today is Biblical illiteracy. I think there are more Christians who think that Jeremiah was a bullfrog than those that know that Jeremiah was (also!) a prophet and a book in the Bible.
Thus I believe that a pastor’s duty is to use the sermon as a time to teach the Bible – to explain, expound upon it and to teach its life applications.
This particular sermon, while having a scriptural background, was definitely more of a gimmick – a PR stunt – then a sober and profound teaching of the Word of God.
(In fact, I think his ORDER for his married couples to have sex for seven straight days is not in complete agreement with Paul’s teaching which puts the onus of ‘responsibility’ for having sex on the couple itself, not an outside source).
Again, though, I don’t have MAJOR problems with what was done. I just wish he had done this is a less gimmicky manner.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM
But he defines a functional sex life as what?
It may be, after 50 years of marriage, that sex is not that important.
Dysfunctional is not his to define.
You may have a very committed couple who only feel sex for for procreation…and they may be happy with that. Or you may have two that love swinging from a trapeze bar, dressed as Tarzan and Jane, and obsessed with sex morning, noon and night…so which one is dysfunctional?
It is a matter between the couples…
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
r2b,
You touch on another ‘concern’ I had with this sermon.
It’s great for young couples who are still very sexually active.
But what about older couples? Especially those who may have medical conditions that make having sex difficult if not impossible?
And what about the divorced and widowed – those who may not ever be married again? How does this message come across to them?
I’m hoping that the man knows his flock and that most of the people coming to his church are young-ish couples.
This is another reason why I think this would have been a really excellent speech at a couples retreat, but maybe not so good as a Sunday morning sermon.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Why are some so opposed to having sex for 7 days? Is it just because a preacher, a person you count on for spritual advice, told you to? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with building intimacy. The BS in life seems to melt away when you have a healthy relationship with your spouse and your God. I understand that some old people physically can’t have sex every day, but they can still build intimacy.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Agreed, and this sermon may have been better for a marriage retreat.
My problem is what so many pastor’s do (on purpose or inadvertantly). Placing guilt…so you have a couple who have sex once a week and they are fully satisfied and happy and content…you have a pastor saying do it every day for seven days or you won’t be happy (implied).
Or you have a women (or man), that having sex every day would be traumatic (a “chore”).
No offense, but this guy is not a marriage counselor, he has 25,000 different people.
Just a side note, decades ago, my wife has a miscarriage, she didn’t want to have sex for months after…and I understood. The last thing she needed would have been some pastor on Sunday morning telling her to “get it on” with her husband, when something much greater, much more important needed to be worked out.
This is why these “non-denomination” churches get such a bad rap…they just go off into space.
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Everyone I know who attends this church is a young or middle aged married couple. There are some but not just a whole lot of older folks – pretty much in line with the demographics of the area. He knows his crowd. Not everyone who’s marriage is in trouble will take the initiative to go to a couples’ retreat or marriage counseling.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I may have missed it, but I don’t think ANYONE here has a ‘problem’ with having sex of seven days.
The discussion has mostly been more about the sermon’s correctness, appropriateness and gimmicky nature.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM
There have been a lot of comments about “well so-and-so can’t have sex” and so forth. While it was gimmicky in nature I do think couples need to be more open with eachother on this subject – and I hope that is what was achieved.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM
One part of intimacy is sex…and the older you get the more sophisticated your intimacy is. Intimacy is physical at the beginning because you have so little “background” to draw on. As time and relationships move on, your “intimacy” make-up shifts.
Taking my wife out to a breakfast, just the two of us, and relaxing in the early morning with coffee at a little restaurant on the beach, may sound boring and non-intimate…but to her it is one of the ways I express intimacy to her, that is how she connects.
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I also think that assumption is awful too. My husband and I see each other for maybe 6 or 8 days in a month, so in all, 3-4 nights. Most of that time is spent with the kids, because they need his attention more than I do. When we do get alone time, it’s rarely R-rated. Intimacy is more than just sex… and in my opinion, more important. An outside observer may think we’re headed for bad times, but only my husband and I know the true temperature, tone, and tenor of our relationship.
About gimmicky churches – as long as they’re teaching accurately whatever brand of Christianity they profess, I have no problem with lights, music, gimmicks, whatever. I’d be more inclined to go to a church like that, as the extras would grab my attention better. Once you have new people in the door, you have to keep their focus, and not everyone likes a dry service. It’s not for everybody, but if it brings more people to your religion, it can’t be all bad, can it?
Anna on November 18, 2008 at 9:22 AM
If sex is the only highlight in your life, you need to get a life.
johnnyU on November 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM
But that’s a good and important point.
A pastor needs to careful not to alienate large parts of his/her congregation.
And the truth is, for some part of his congregation, having sex at all is difficult if not impossible due to physical or emotional difficulties.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Making religion understandable, meaningful and exciting for new generations is always important.
However, there are many churches that are very, very good at getting people in the door who then do a very, very POOR job of making them disciples.
Now, please note that I have no idea if this is applicable or not to this particular church. I’m just speaking in generalities.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM
That’s the point, he thinks he “knows” his crowd, as much “good” he thinks he has done, he never thought of the harm he has created.
Gimmicks are great, which is why this guy could probably never have a mainstream church.
BTW, what are his education credentials…his father is a Dr. and has a large church. But this “pastors” education is well hidden, does he even have a degree or is he just the son of a famous preacher?
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM
I’ve known many people who were easily alienated. Surely the people who are unable to have sex will understand that intimacy is the goal. If not then they just might be looking for a reason to be offended. At one time or another sex was an important part of their marriage.
This particular church attracts some wonderful people that are faithful disciples and share their witness freely. They are in the heart of the DFW metroplex and attract a diverse and devoted crowd. I prefer my baptist church but this one seems to be okay.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM
http://www.fellowshipchurch.com/splash/
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM
OOPS!
http://www.fellowshipchurch.com/splash/
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Fellowship Church has campuses in Grapevine TX, Downtown Dallas, Plano, Fort Worth, and Miami Florida. They have an obscene amount of members and are well-known in the DFW metroplex as being a main stream mega church.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Again, though, a good pastor will try NOT to alienate his/her congregation.
Yes, it happens from time to time, but a pastor should do their best to minimize this.
And the point here is this – if you continue to alienate people, they will leave the church.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Maybe if they are so easily alienated that they get upset about being told to be intimate with their spouse they should consider a church with a pastor who doesn’t feel that way. There are PLENTY of good churches to choose from here. Personally, I prefer to have my toes stepped on.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM
He wasn’t saying that all.
He was using an extreme, over the top example to remind couples that a healthy sexual marriage is crucial ingredient for a healthy spiritual life.
Not once did he say that you won’t be happy if you don’t have sex once a day.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM
If they have a pastor who couldn’t care less who he alienates…
…then they SHOULD find another place – one where the pastor actually cares enough to FEED and CARE for ALL of his flock – not just certain ones.
Listen, I’m glad that you want to defend your pastor – that’s a GOOD thing.
However, no pastor is perfect and one should not try to defend the indefensible.
Again, I don’t have any major problems with what he said.
But there ARE legitimate concerns and, most definitely, there were better ways your pastor could have presented and handled this material.
But it’s wholly un-Christian to ‘dismiss’ people and wish them to leave because the pastor turned a deaf ear toward them.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM
He’s not my pastor. I go to a baptist church. My pastor stomps on our toes and the congregation appreciates it. Your idea that a pastor should sugar coat and baby the minority sounds kind of … how should I put this… Hopenchangey.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I see where you’re coming from, but I still disagree.
Not preaching about important issues just because it may make some people uncomfortable isn’t a good enough reason not to talk about it.
Our pastor recently did a sermon on divorce that would have been quite uncomfortable for those who have gone through it. He talked on the biblical stance of divorce (when it’s allowed and when it’s not) and society’s stance on divorce.
The sermon may have been lost on a lot the congregation (we have a lot of young singles) but it spoke directly to couples who were married – both those who had a healthy marriage, and those who were having difficulties.
Anyways, I just feel that people here are having a knee-jerk reaction to a sermon that wasn’t meant to offend.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Yeah…
…THAT’S what I believe because I think that a pastor is responsible for ALL of his flock and should not give cause for anyone to leave the church.
/sarc & rolleyes
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I didn’t say that it would make people feel uncomfortable.
As far as I’m concerned, a pastor who isn’t making some of his/her congregation uncomfortable is a pastor who isn’t doing their job (i.e. preaching about sin will always make some people uncomfortable).
This is a bit different, though.
This isn’t about making people feel uncomfortable, it’s about ‘losing’ a good part of the congregation because the message either doesn’t relate to them or that a delicate subject is not handled with the appropriate delicacy.
And I never mentioned anything about being the message being ‘offensive.’
I’m just voicing my concerns about how it could have/SHOULD have been handled better.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Christians don’t want gay marriage because they think it will ‘destroy traditional marriage’. This pastor is trying to help improve the marriages of the people in his church and people are complaining? Marriage is a relevant topic for a sermon. But I can see how the big “Seven Days of Sex” headline could put people off.
Bobbertsan on November 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
A protestant pastor with some common sense. Wow. Ordain this guy to the priesthood and set him loose.
Gaunilon on November 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’m glad you feel that way, and honestly I agree. The ends don’t justify the means, but so long as the means themselves are justifiable, I have no problem.
Older couples can and really should still have sex. I don’t get this mentality that says it ends at a certain point. People may disagree with me, but I think it’s that mentality that prompted this sermon in the first place.
As to those with medical conditions, I think that’s obvious.
Sex isn’t the only thing in the marriage and shouldn’t take the place of spending quality time with your family either, as in the case Anna described.
However, I think it is still important in a marriage so much so that couples should make it a priority when possible. I don’t think he meant that he could judge a relationship just by how often they have sex but rather how often they have sex when they’re able to, and on that, I’d agree. If a couple is able to have sex almost daily but barely makes it once or twice a month, that says something.
Maybe you missed the part where Jesus said “if this is the situation”. Is there anything about this society makes you think we’re in the same situation as the disciples were right after they received the Holy Spirit?
Last I checked Christians are still free, at least in this country, to be open about their faith without fear of being stoned to death.
The point made in both passages, this one and Paul’s, is that those early Christians were faced daily with the prospect of dying for Christ and having a spouse would only make their sacrifices more difficult, as they’d likely be forced to watch their loved one be tortured to death at some point.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Yeah, but that’s the inevitable nature of the talking about something like sex – just like divorce doesn’t speak directly to single people.
These are important issues, and like I said, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to tiptoe around it.
Me neither.
Well, hindsight, 20/20 and all.
I wonder if the rest of the sermon is online. I’m curious to see the rest.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
First off, I never said that the elderly shouldn’t or don’t have sex.
However, having sex for seven consecutive days IS a little bit out of the norm for elderly couples – and possibly even dangerous if either one of the couple has a heart condition.
As for your response about sex not being the only thing in the marriage – I think that was kind of my point.
EMPHASIZING sex to the point that he did – making it to be the sole important indicator of how a marriage is doing – is doing a disservice to couples who may define intimacy in different ways.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I’m not implying that he should have tip-toed around it.
What I AM saying is that he should have given a more, well rounded look at intimacy instead of defining it solely as sex. That way he doesn’t alienate people for whom having sex every day for a week is pretty much out of the question.
That said, he might have done just that and it’s missing from that little clip we were given.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM
No, you just seem to be implying that it’s natural for them to stop having sex. That’s what I was disagreeing with.
It’s out of the norm for most people, otherwise it wouldn’t be a post here. And I agreed with you on medical conditions. Sex shouldn’t kill you, though it is a preferred way to go.
And I was agreeing with you. I thought that was obvious.
Which was my point about when you’re able to have sex and don’t. If you’re healthy and have the time but choose to ignore your sex life anyway, then yes, that says something about your relationship, even if you have other forms of intimacy. All couples have that, but that doesn’t mean sex becomes less important.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
A pastor is responsible for his flock. But if talking about intimacy makes people uncomfortable then maybe they need to seek one-on-one time with the pastor to discuss their personal issues. My mom left a church because the pastor preached that satan would like nothing better than to cause a Godly couple to divorce – right after her divorce. I think this is a perfect example of a member of a flock being overly sensitive. Much like I see being offended over sex as being overly sensitive. We’re bombarded with sex on TV, at schools, on billboards, etc – why not get some GOOD advice from a man of God?
Elderly people are mostly retired – seems that they could make more time for intimacy than those of us who work. It seems that a lot of excuses are being made.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
No – but I DO think it’s natural for them to not have sex as OFTEN as they used to when they were younger…
…and for sex to not be as IMPORTANT as it is to younger couples (different forms/kinds of intimacy and all that kind of stuff).
This may be TMI (too much information), but when I was first married, seven times in a week would not have been unusual. From what little I know from other young couples, that is true for them.
As for as sex not killing people – it CAN be a strenuous activity and elderly people are well known to have common heart conditions.
And here I would disagree with you.
As couples mature, sex becomes a little less important to them as other forms and types of intimacy become known.
Now, I’m NOT saying that sex becomes UNIMPORTANT.
I’m simply saying that a couple’s views on the importance and regularity of sex changes as they grow and mature together and it ceases to be the end-all be-all of intimacy.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
The sermon was not about ‘intimacy’ – it was about sex.
IF the pastor had broadened his message to include other forms/types of intimacy, then I’d have less of a problem with it and he wouldn’t have alienated people.
And this has nothing to do with making people uncomfortable or offended.
It has to do with a pastor doing his/her best to INCLUDE as many of his flock as possible during a message.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM
So every sermon should include every member of the flock… There are sometimes sermons that don’t ring true for me but I can always glean something productive. Like a sermon on waiting to have sex until marriage, for example. I’m already married. This sermon doesn’t apply to me. So I guess I’ll leave the church.
I don’t understand your argument.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Amen, jharada. My best friend used to go to church there and I went with her a couple of times. One sermon was a psych lecture with scripture thrown in. I never felt like I had been fed the Word of God when I left that place.
teffertoes on November 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Listen, if you’re going to be this deliberately obtuse then I don’t think we can have a conversation anymore.
Stop trying to make some kind of weird, axiomatic deal out of everything I’m trying to say.
A pastor should do their best to craft sermons that can speak to the vast majority of their congregation.
It’s not that difficult to do.
This pastor seems to have missed an easy opportunity to speak to a larger part of his congregation than just the younger, more sexual-active couples (by speaking about being intimate instead of just focusing on sex).
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I have to wonder, when is the last time he opened Scripture and preached on doctrine?
Seems this is why the Church suffers. We don’t teach people what to believe. I watched a Christian get eaten up by a JW on doctrine a few weeks ago. A little study and they could have been properly equipped to deal with the issue.
Tim Burton on November 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t go to the church. Personally I prefer my baptist church to the happy-feely churches but I honestly think that this message (though maybe worded differently) is needed. With his young congregation he probably felt safe addressing it point-blank. With my congregation it would be more intimacy related – perhaps calling for the 40 day challenge in Bible Fellowship classes (aka Sunday School).
Some people just walk around looking for reasons to be upset or offended or alienated. Those people probably would be better off in another setting. They certainly wouldn’t be happy at my church when the pastor pounds the pulpit and tells it like it is. It is a matter of being humble enough to recognize our flaws and use it as an opportunity to grow. I assure you that the entire adult married/divorced congregation has had sex and has at one point been in a conflict that might have been lessened with a healthy intimate/sexual life.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM
And you don’t have to accuse me of being “deliberately obtuse” just because I don’t agree with you. I would be willing to bet money that not only haven’t you listened to the whole series but that intimacy was mentioned multiple times.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM
We started off with 100 people in 1991 and now have 35,000, so we are doing something right.
I am simply astounded that so many of you, who have never been to the church, let alone even taken the time to look around the website or watch the entire sermon to get proper context in terms of the whole “Leaving Lust Vegas” series this was a part of, can offer up what you perceive to be such “informed” views.
It is not for everyone, and you have the right to not like it, but to simply bash it as gimmicky for the sake of sounding intelligent on a message board is ridiculous.
I love Fellowship Church and it is where I was saved, and thank GOD for creative pastors like Ed Young Jr! AMEN!
I have heard Ed say a thousand times that our church is not for everyone, and no matter where you go, make sure you are getting fed on Christ’s word and that you are engaged.
The fact that so many people are talking about our church is a good thing no matter what you may think of it.
ReaganConservative3 on November 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I’m glad to hear you stand up for this guy. Also glad to know another DFWite in the room. I go to Prestonwood. I understand that the reason there are so many churches is that we are human and that not everyone is going to identify with every church doctrine.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM
True.
And some people walk around looking for spiritual food from their pastors and, instead, receive nothing.
Anyway, you keep (deliberately?) misunderstanding the point.
It’s not about a bunch of people who don’t want to hear what is being said or people who don’t want to really hear what God thinks about their life and lifestyle choices.
It’s about being a pastor and the sacred and solemn responsibility they have to feed ALL of their sheep, not just a couple of them at a time.
And it really isn’t difficult to craft a sermon in which the pastor can at least give most of his flock SOMETHING that relates to them and their situation.
And while I applaud this pastor’s courage and conviction to speak about the importance and necessity of sex in a marriage…
…I am also saddened that he did not take just a couple of minutes to expand his definition of intimacy to include more of his flock for whom intimacy is not solely defined by sex.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:48 AM
No, I accused you of being “deliberately obtuse” because you are taking my specific points and trying to make over-generalized rules out of them.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Are you suggesting that the sermon WASN’T gimmicky?
The photo with the bed on the stage would seem to argue otherwise.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Wow. So I’m overgeneralizing but you aren’t? It sounds like you’re just looking for something to bash the guy about. I hope that even when I’m in a state that I can’t have sex I will at least appreciate it’s importance in marriages and perhaps overlook my own “alienation” for the good of the “flock”.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Yet again you deliberately miss my point.
I’m beginning to think that, for you, ANY criticism of this pastor is ‘beyond the pale.’
It would have been easy, so very easy to make the sermon about intimacy and not just about sex – and thus not alienate parts of his flock.
Thus, one has to wonder, being that it would so easy, WHY didn’t the pastor do it?
And I feel sorry for you that you don’t expect/demand more from your preacher, for you’ll surely have a preacher who lives down to your expectations.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I’ve said like 6 times now that I don’t go to the church, don’t care for it.
I’ve also said that intimacy WAS part of the series.
I was just standing up for what seemed like an illogical argument against another pastor. Give the congregation some credit. Even old folks remember how important sex was at one time. I seriously doubt anyone would walk out because the preacher told them to have sex.
Thanks for the numerous petty insults though. I’m sure that wouldn’t POSSIBLY alienate me from your church.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM
If you don’t go to the church, how do you know that?
If you have a link to the transcript, I’d love to see that.
Stating that a pastor should feed his ENTIRE flock is NOT illogical.
It’s scriptural.
The only time I ever mentioned walking out was for people who were never fed by their pastor.
And you keep missing the point that the pastor has a responsibility – a DIVINE responsibility – to feed ALL of his flock.
And having a bunch of old folks go “yeah, THOSE were the days – when we could have sex all the time”…
…this doesn’t really fit the description of feeding your flock.
1) If you don’t like being “insulted”, stop acting stupidly.
2) Before you start talking about the speck in my eye, you may want to examine the plank sticking out of yours.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Ditto. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about this whole thing. You can look up the transcripts for yourself. And you can insist that every sermon should directly address every person in the congregation. I think this sermon DOES apply to everyone in some way.
Perhaps instead of insulting those who disagree with you you could write Ed Young a nice letter of how YOU would lead a church from 100 members in 1991 to over 35,000 now. I’m sure he’d appreciate it.
This is the reason we have so many churches – each pastor resonates a bit differently to the needs of people.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM
OK. Apparently I’ve missed something here? Is there a video or a transcript of the entire sermon out there somewhere? Do you go to this church? If so, I’d like to hear/watch/get a summary of the sermon. If not, how can you criticize a sermon you haven’t heard?
Bobbertsan on November 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Exactly. I’m sure you can find it somewhere – as well publicized as it’s been. In DFW it has been a subject on the news for a couple weeks now.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I am a member of this church, and i can say, week in, week out, Ed preaches from the Word.
Several mentions have been of teaching discipleship. Isnt part of good discipleship for men loving their wives like Christ loves the church? Isnt good discipleship for women submitting to their husbands as unto the Lord? (Eph 5:21-33)
We have a variety of sermons, based on a variety of topics, all from God’s word. This week it was on marriage, but the over all topic of this series is call “Leaving Lust Vegas”. Specifically talking about lust in our society and how to combat it and how to concentrate on Christ through it.
Ed likes to push the envelope from a creativity standpoint. He wants to make a church for people who went to traditional churches and got turned off. The Gospel is the most creative message around.
I do not attend this church because of Ed. I attend this church because ed is biblically sound, it challenges me every day to be a better disciple of Christ, and to put my faith into action.
You can disagree with the presentation if you want, but God never said you couldnt have a big church with alot of people and use the day’s technology to spread the Gospel. I mean, if you are against big churches, what do you do with the church in Acts 2:41,47 -> where 3000 were added immediately and more were added everyday.
Thanks,
psv
psv on November 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
That’s not much different. Either way, I still disagree.
I never said it doesn’t only that it shouldn’t; sex is exercise and like any other form should only be done by those who are able. Still, as I said, it is a preferred way to go.
It’s never the “end-all be-all.” Anyone who believes it is will have a rough time in marriage, and I’ve never suggested that it should be.
However, I don’t see any reason for its importance to decrease unless the couple is somehow prevented from having sex.
That’s my whole point.
There’s plenty of us here. I’m in Arlington, but I don’t have a church here right now.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM
OK. Apparently I’ve missed something here? Is there a video or a transcript of the entire sermon out there somewhere? Do you go to this church? If so, I’d like to hear/watch/get a summary of the sermon. If not, how can you criticize a sermon you haven’t heard?
Bobbertsan on November 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The sermon is online at our website. Also, to Religious_Zealot’s point, the sermon was about intimacy, and how having sex every day will help couple’s connect through that. For some couples its a challenge.
Watch first, then talk. Do not talk out of ignorance.
psv on November 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Interesting that you refuse to provide a link.
Interesting that you also continue to deliberately misstate my points.
I’ve NEVER said or even insinuated that “every sermon should directly address every person in the congregation.”
I guess nuance and reading comprehension aren’t your strengths.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM
It took me a minute to realize you meant Arlington, Texas, not Virginia. I’m pretty dense. Good place, though, in Texas. My husband has an aunt & uncle that live that way, good people to visit.
Anna on November 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Sorry, but there’s a HUGE difference between not having sex and not having it as often as you used to.
And I’m sorry if you are under the misconception that elderly people have sex as often as they did when they were younger.
They simply don’t.
Things like jobs and children necessitate a reduction in having sex which, in turn, necessitates a reduction in the IMPORTANCE of having sex.
A couple has to learn how to find intimacy in different places and, as such, other types of intimacy grow in importance while sex lessens in importance.
Again, it never completely goes away (nor should it), but it definitely becomes a bit less over time.
Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Not on that one particular subject, no, but that doesn’t mean the seniors there aren’t fed. You earlier rejected the idea that everything the pastor says has to feed every single person at the church, but in this statement, you’re embracing the idea, especially considering you’ve already admitted that maybe the pastor did discuss intimacy in the way you hoped in some other portion of the sermon.
And considering that this was one sermon out of a series of sermons, the likelihood of that being true is fairly high, which makes it difficult to understand what your beef really is here.
Esthier on November 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Esthier – My family has really enjoyed Prestonwood but that is far from you. Just keep looking and you’ll find one that will allow you to glorify God and get the fellowship we all need. :)
psv – Thanks for pointing that out. I constantly hear people dogging my church for being a “megachurch”, Six Flags Over Jesus, or The Baptidome. But once they come to the church they quit dogging it. I’m sure you’ve had the same experience with Fellowship. I just get mad when you guys clog up traffic at BassProShops haha!
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I’ve already provided you with a link to their website. If you truly wanted to educate yourself you could easily point-and-click and point-and-click. Perhaps I should use words that you use so they will be familiar. I think this sermon ‘feeds the entire flock’.
Doppleganker on November 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »