Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 19, 2024, 02:21:30 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Let's Talk About Sex  (Read 109749 times)
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2007, 05:37:53 pm »

Nicely said, TerryD. There is an odd preoccupation with sex, which, as Agatha pointed out, may have something to do with the emphasis on gender roles.

Don’t get me started on courting, but I think that’s part of the preoccupation. They’re always conscious of sex because they’re trying so hard to avoid it. No wonder there’s so much sexual tension in the student groups. If they’d just let people have normal American relationships (with emphasis on purity), people wouldn’t think about it so much.

Maybe this is faulty logic and I’ve forgotten what it was like to be single.

Anyway, sex is beautiful, good (as in pleasing to God), and fun, but it’s not the end all, be all of life.

Why can some people choose chastity for a lifetime? Because there’s more to life than sex–something our culture doesn’t clue people in on.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2007, 05:38:14 pm »

My response preceded by a “+” sign.

terryd said…



Samuel said,”This may be a good example of “repulsion” of sex associated with God-stuff.



I think you mean “repression,” but either way it sounds like the old saw coming from modern secularists that biblical Christians are terribly repressed and tense on the topic of eros and therefore preoccupied with sexual morality, etc.etc.



++++I meant “repulsed.” I see it all the time coming from Christians and non-Christians. This especially from those sexually abused, repressed, damaged, or with some faulty “attachment” database.



The reality, of course, is precisely the opposite. Who could possibly deny that it is the culture at large that is utterly anxious, distracted and preoccupied with sex. Even in the 1950’s C.S. Lewis in his series “The Four Loves” worried that modern western civilization, far from being free and relaxed on the subject, had begun treating sex with an almost religious solemnity and was in danger of a re-emergence of the ancient phallic cults. Can you imagine what he might observe now?



So what is the church to do? Ignore it? Of course not. Expose the selfishness, corruption and emptiness of the distorted cultural version, contrast it with liberating biblical truth.



Address it to be sure, but one of the first distortions to address is this preposterous exaggeration and deification of sex we’re all being sold. That’s what we most need liberation from.



+++++I would agree with these statements and add on top the Biblical view of sex so that it is not a “thou shalt not…”



When GCM people and others trying to be “relevant” are themselves oddly preoccupied with the subject, they’re participating in the problem, not speaking prophetically to it.



++++This statement pains me because it is presuming that they are not speaking prophetically to the issue. Maybe you assume that to “speak prophetically” you must denounce it and reprove it. I don’t share that narrow view, if that is what you mean. I believe to speak prophetically can be to correct lies, heal wounds, motivate discouraged souls, etc., etc.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2007, 05:38:26 pm »

Genevieve, I do think you are a bit too harsh on this. You seem to be trying to find a suspicious “something” hidden under a rock. You were once a young person. You have had hormones raging. It is a big part of most men’s lives. It is in your face every day. I would imagine that the elders in the church of Ephesus were confronted with that stark reality with the Temple of Diana and Diana worship all around which related to SEX,SEX,SEX! To ignore such would be to become like a bunch of Puritans. I do think you are being a bit too strong on this.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest

« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2007, 05:38:43 pm »

Are the Puritans bad?
Logged
TerryD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2007, 05:38:58 pm »

I said:
When GCM people and others trying to be “relevant” are themselves oddly preoccupied with the subject, they’re participating in the problem, not speaking prophetically to it.

Samuel replied:
“This statement pains me because it is presuming that they are not speaking prophetically to the issue.”

Let me say it another way:
When people trying to be relevant are themselves overly preoccupied with the subject of sex (and by “overly” I mean some of the excesses several other commentators have identified in their GCM experience: indiscrete oversharing, invasions of privacy, doubtful exegesis and other lapses in judgement)they are in a way participating in the problem even as they attempt to speak to it prophetically.

Samuel said:
“I believe to speak prophetically can be to correct lies, heal wounds, motivate discouraged souls, etc., etc.”

I agree, and one of the biggest lies to correct is that eros deserves all the public attention it gets…and more!

Incidentally, he cult of Diana in Ephesus and Corinth are good examples of what can happen when you elevate a good gift of God to the status of a god.

Obviously no real Christian teacher is deliberately doing that, but as they reach down over the precipice to rescue the world, let them be careful not to fall in.
Logged
bertrandbaggersly
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10



« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2007, 05:39:19 pm »

I’m pro-Puritan. Minus the witch hunts of course.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2007, 05:39:33 pm »

Bertrand Baggersly said…

I’m pro-Puritan. Minus the witch hunts of course.

___________________



Bertrand,



Do you believe sex is only for procreation only? Wink

Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
annoyed
Guest

« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2007, 05:40:12 pm »

Hey Mama D - you’ve got it all wrong. GCM does not condone seductive dress in the name of making Christ attractive - such as the “Barbie” singer you mentioned. In fact, it was a real problem. Multiple meetings have been held to help the singers understand why women should dress modestly.
Logged
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2007, 05:40:24 pm »

You assume too much, Sam, when you say that I was young once. I’m younger than you think, and you misunderstand me.

Can I remember a time when I wasn’t sexually active? Yes.

I think that’s why the extreme conservative approach of courtship bothers me. It takes out a very normal aspect of human relationships–sex (or the leading up to it such as kissing, spending lots of time alone, etc).

Frankly, I don’t care who has sex with who. I don’t think it really matters that much, and GCM’s intrusiveness about who’s doing what with who (or just themselves!) and who’s fantasizing about what encourages that puritanical view you keep warning us against.

Just because they’re talking about it doesn’t make them open. In their case, they’re trying to squelch and control those normal desires even more by finding out exactly what you’re thinking, dreaming, doing, and then trying to get you to stop–and by saying that even kissing someone isn’t treating them like a “sister” in the biblical sense.

So, I just want them to get over it! Kissing is normal. Fantasies are normal. Masturbation is normal. Sex is normal. Trying to reign that in so much just makes it seem “other” and makes the desire even stronger.

Do I think sex before marriage is good? No. But do I think it’s as bad as I used to? No.
Logged
MamaD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2007, 05:40:37 pm »

Dear Annoyed,

I’m sorry to annoy you. That was not my intent.

The situation involving “Barbie” was addressed shortly after my husband mentioned it. That was a good thing and demonstrated the character of the worship leader. (I did wonder why it went on for so long, though without anyone saying anything).

My point in the comment was to address Gene’s original post and say there sometimes has been a mixed message.

Does anyone else think that 32 comments on the “sex” post is enough?!

Thank you, good-night, and drive safely!
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2007, 05:40:57 pm »

Genevieve said:



So, I just want them to get over it! Kissing is normal. Fantasies are normal. Masturbation is normal. Sex is normal. Trying to reign that in so much just makes it seem “other” and makes the desire even stronger.

____________________________________



Genevieve… That is exactly the spirit that I tried to convey in our church when I was in GC. Some here think that is bad.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2007, 05:41:12 pm »

I suppose I am the “some here.” Again, I am misunderstood! Sigh.

Again… I am not anti-sex. Nor am I anti-normal. Sheesh.
Logged

Glad to be free.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2007, 05:41:24 pm »

Agatha L’Orange said…



I suppose I am the “some here.” Again, I am misunderstood! Sigh.



Again… I am not anti-sex. Nor am I anti-normal. Sheesh.

__________________________________



Agatha,



If I misunderstood you, then please forgive me. Maybe I’m sensing wrong but I feel that I am being told through implication that teaching/talking about sex whether through outreach or congregational processes is wrong. I guess that is what I am responding to because it feels like a “black or white” mentality.



So sorry Agatha.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2007, 05:41:35 pm »

No problem, I am really not that offended. Smiley
Logged

Glad to be free.
hope
Guest

« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2007, 05:42:45 pm »

Dear Gene,



my husband said that he was a part of “similar” small group discussions about purity and accountability but he never felt pressured to confess anything.



obviously- pressuring someone to confess their personal sin to you is wrong.



but at the same time- having accountability with other christian men is also important.



i think the “fine line” between the two has to do with solicitation. if i ask a small group or prayer partner to help hold me accountable to something- then i would expect them to ask me about it occasionally. if i went to a group where i hadn’t asked this of them- and they felt compelled to make me “cough it up”….hmmm not sure what i would do. (never been in that situation) perhaps one of three things:



1. i would confess and ask for their help (if i liked them)

2. i would say- this is an area that I struggle in but me and JC are working on it! (if I didn’t like them and….)

3. i’d find another small group that i liked better!
Logged
hope
Guest

« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2007, 05:43:08 pm »

p.s. personally- i have always found public confession to be really cool. i am an “open-mic” hog! i like confessing my sins in front of people….i always feel 100% better afterwards.
Logged
hope
Guest

« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2007, 05:44:37 pm »

the earlier mention of sexy singers made me laugh…



i was a singer up front in my GCM church.



and i have always thought that i dressed modestly.



but one day i wore a dress that was questionably too low cut. i realized this during our morning rehearsal before church started so i made sure that i went to the bathroom and buttoned up the sweater i had on over the dress.



the next night one of the pastor’s and his wife came to visit me and my husband. talk about nipping things in the bud! apparently someone was concerned about my dress and had mentioned it to this pastor.



now- my husband and i had a great relationship with this pastor and his wife- so i was not offended by his coming to our house. they handled the situation very lovingly, humbly and gently.



i was, admittedly, embarressed that i needed to have a pastoral visit about it. (even though i was good friends with this pastor) i still wish the person who had the original concern could’ve approached me about it (instead of going straight to a pastor). was i unapproachable about such things? perhaps the person felt like they didn’t have a close enough relationship with me to bring something like that up and “hold me accountable” and make sure that i wasn’t “causing my brothers to stumble” with my cleavage.



i want to be approachable. i want to be held accountable. and i don’t want to cause anyone to stumble.
Logged
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2007, 05:45:04 pm »

Hope, unless you were dressed VERY inappropriately, which it doesn’t sound like you were, then you shouldn’t have had a pastoral visit, even from friends. I think they use the “causing someone to stumble” verse very liberally when applied to women.

It’s back to the “erection waiting to happen” mentality. Yes, women are sexy. The men in your congregation should’ve been able to deal with it without running to the pastor and blaming a woman for looking like a woman.

I know this is kind of harsh, but I got so sick of women trying to cover up everything about themselves that was attractive and sensual just so no one would “stumble.” It seemed like taking the blame unnecessarily.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2007, 05:45:25 pm »

Plus you had already buttoned up your sweater… you made the “correction” yourself. It should have been obvious that you were embarrassed about it. I agree with Genevieve… seems to me a home visit was excessive. I would have been mortified!
Logged

Glad to be free.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2007, 05:45:38 pm »

It’s funny, we have correction for a woman in a turtleneck, and now one in a v neck. Perhaps burqas would be more appropriate.
Logged

Glad to be free.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1