Dear Ed Young,

131 thoughts on “Dear Ed Young,”

1. Johan Huizinga wrote this in “Erasmus and the Age of Reformation” concerning Erasmus’ “The Praise of Folly”:

   “When are we beside ourselves? When the spirit breaks its fetters and tries to escape from its prison and aspires to liberty. That is madness, but it is also other-worldliness and the highest wisdom. True happiness is in selfishness, in the furore of lovers, whom Plato calls happiest of all. The more absolute love is, the greater and more rapturous the frenzy. Heavenly bliss itself is the greatest insanity; truly pious people enjoy its shallow on earth already in their meditations.”

   Personally, I find nothing of this in Ed Jones’ rule of “Thou shalt have sex everyday”. There is no spirit of love, freedom or spontaneity, but pure law, bondage to self, and morbidity. The last thing the world needs is more clockwork determinism.

   “When you’re lovers in a dangerous time,
   Sometimes you’re made to feel as if your love’s a crime,
   But nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight,
   Got to kick at the darkness ’til it bleeds daylight.”
   – Bruce Cockburn

   LikeLike

2. 1. Anyone who doesn’t know Christians are in favor of sex in marriage is a complete imbecile.

   2. Josh S is entirely right: This shows why evangelicalism isn’t a serious religion of any kind. It’s now selling its product by way of orgasms.

   3. Would John Piper sit on a bed in his church and talk sex with his wife in front of the congregation?

   Or would he open the scriptures and deliver the Word of the Lord?

   I’m not a Piper-clone, but he does have a bead on the dignity and respect that goes with being a preacher.

   4. This entire stunt is a matter of subtly enforcing the idea that men can insist on sex from their wives any time and it is sinful to be refused. That’s the subtext and that’s the draw. Men get all the sex they want, no questions asked, in a Christian marriage.

   5. Someone ask a Muslim what they think of this. Missionaries: How would this go over in your sitting?

   LikeLike

3. It’s interesting, I put a few puns together in the fourth comment on this thread because Michael mentioned replacing ‘saved’ with ‘laid’ in his sermons and that set me off with a bit of a chuckle. I come back and we’re over a hundred comments and still going, and I’ve somehow become an example of post-evangelical group therapy. I was just being silly. As Ed Young appears to have been with this idea. It’s silly to put up a bed on stage and talk about your sex life. My father is a pastor, and if he had done something like that when I was growing up I would never have come to church again. And he wouldn’t have done it, because he respects his wife and the integrity of his church.

   LikeLike

4. Bradley:

   I have interacted way too much in this thread. We’re not playing the game of adding in a dozen or so extra pieces of information and subtleties so that no criticism is really all that appropriate.

   I didn’t say this was a criminal act. I, the author and officially representative of no one but myself, said that I found it embarassing, humiliating and a grab for publicity. I conclude that primarily from the CNN interview with Young and his wife.

   This business of acting like I’m not aware of the twenty ways this can look better if we just remember a few verses, etc is legalistic hairsplitting.

   So what if the Bible commands sex. Does Paul saying don’t deprive one another have anything to do with Young going on CNN with his wife and discussing how much intercourse they had?

   If this is just my 52 year old prudishness, then fine. Young’s POINT was whatever Young and his apologists say it is. As if there’s no spin on this intentionally provocative deal. This “Sex sermon from the bed” bit is going on all over the place: TBN had a guy doing it two months ago, the Relevant Church in Tampa, Driscoll answering questions about anal and oral. If you want context, look around at what’s going on in evangelicalism. They have been talking about sex non stop in these churches for the last 5 years. It’s guaranteed to put butts in the seats. ANd then you can tell them about Jesus. Right?

   Do I deny that? Do I say Young isn’t a Christian? Doesn’t plan to save all these people?

   I’m just saying it’s a humiliating and embarrassing tactic by a guy who shapes the aspirations and ideals of thousands and thousands of people.

   He’s not above criticism for the Sex Challenge.

   If Young was a traditional church pastor I could criticize him all day and the Young apologists would amen my every post. Let me say their guy screwed up…..uh…laid an….uh……made a mistake IN MY SOLO OPINION and it’s a big deal.

   If someone has something new and interesting to say, it better appear soon or I’m closing the discussion. We’ve all said out bit. So be it.

   LikeLike

5. And that “pastor” was directed to the grinning idiot, not you, Internet Monk 🙂

   LikeLike

6. I want to have sex. When do I get to have sex?

   I’m single. I may never get married. It’s up to God. Maybe He wants me to stay single forever.

   So that means I’ll never have sex.

   Thanks for throwing it in my face, pastor. I’d rather read more about my (celibate) Jesus.

   LikeLike

7. Michael,

   1. Did Young say his motive was to attract more people or is this something your thinking is a safe assumption?

   2. Where was it that Young told his congregation that it was the will of God that everyone actually take up his challenge—regardless of age, medical condition, etc. etc.? I honestly thought he was just giving a “challenge,” similar to, say, a pastor challenging his people to spend extra time with their family each day of a certain week (like a Seven-Day Family Time Challenge). As I understand the language of “challenge,” it’s way different than telling your people that God has commanded everyone to do it, irrespective of their context, age, etc.

   3. If Ed Young’s point was that Paul commands for wives not to withhold themselves form their husbands and vice versa, a seven day challenge might be a little cheesy, but is it really “off topic”? What would be the level of topic-correspondence if he had done the “Seven Day Fasting Challenge” after preaching on, say, fasting in the Old Testament?

   In the one case, the Bible commands sex: “Do not withhold yourselves from one another…” (I Cor 7:5). In the other, the Bible doesn’t even command fasting (although one can make the argument that it’s implied that Jesus expected it based on Mark 2:20). I’m just not sure I understand how Ed is off topic in your perspective? Or are you just saying that it’s inappropriate?

   Hope you will see this as an opportunity to clarify your perspective so we aren’t so uncertain as to what it is your saying is wrong about Young’s “Challenge.”

   LikeLike

8. Would it have escaped your hypercritical gaze, guv’nah, if Pastor Ed had called it the Seven-Day “Photography” Challenge?

   You know, candid. *wink* *wink*

   Know what I mean? Eh? Eh? *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* Say no MORE!

   LikeLike

9. Your examples don’t seem to be matters of prudent pastoral sensitivity. They seem to be examples of extreme over sensitivity that go beyond reasonable consideration.

   The point I’ve tried to make all day is that we all teach on sex a lot. I certainly do. But a Seven Day Sex Challenge? If anything, that’s distracting from teaching. It creates another focus entirely.

   LikeLike

10. “Or does it matter what they think…as long as the sensational promotion gets the attention of the crowd.”

    Should we not preach that sinners go to hell because some people in the church have had unsaved loved ones die?

    Should we not teach that stealing is wrong because one guy makes his living stealing car radios?

    I think a number of the examples you gave are matters for personal counseling. They obviously have troubles. However, if we can’t teach on sensitive subjects because someone might be offended…why preach?

    I do need to ask one question about the media sensation raised over this 7 Day Challenge:

    If the Church is not prudish and disfunctional about sex, why does one pastor’s challenge to his own church strike the outside world as worthy of national news coverage?

    For what it’s worth, the unsaved I have heard talking about this are not mocking the church or Christianity. The overwhelming sentiment seems to be shock that a Christian would promote having sex.

    Feel free to moderate. It is, after all, not a public forum but your blog. One I appreciate having around to read.

    DD

    LikeLike

11. The problem with all of this is the use of God to get what you really want – in this case a great sex life.

    Consumerism is so much in the water that a lot of the time we don’t even notice it’s there any more. There’s nothing wrong with having a great sex life with your wife, but when God becomes the means of getting it then we start to commit the sin of idolatry. It’s a case of ‘Christ and ..’ or ‘turning a good thing into an ultimate thing’.

    This is my criticism of Mark Driscoll’s current series. I think Mark gives out a lot of good advice. He was careful to state up front “Many people think that marriage is primarily about making you happy, but God sees it primarily as a way of making you holy”. Still, I suspect that a fair few people couldn’t hold that disclaimer in their mind through the hour long presentation that follows.

    LikeLike

12. I wonder what 18 year old boys think about marriage when they hear about the 7 day challenge?

    What do couples who have sex once a week and like it that way think?

    What do people with six kids and no time think? — IMonk

    What does a 53-year-old virgin (who no woman ever found attractive) think?

    I’m glad last Sunday my church didn’t do a “Seven Day Sex Challenge”. Instead we had the Mass of Christ the King, ending the liturgical year with full bells-and-smells. (Somehow, Grinning Ed’s bed/ambo would have looked out-of-place against the black marble and white altarcloths of St Boniface’s main altar.)

    Oh, and Boethius, enlighten us a a bit on “famous cradle-to-grave RCs”. What curse do you claim is “in store for the children they will raise”?

    LikeLike

13. iMonk,
    It’s impossible to include everything in a single message or series. But I hope Pastor Young follows this up with a series on the high calling of singleness and wrestles with Jesus’ words about eunuchs born that way and those renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom (Matt 19:12).

    Or Paul’s desire that ‘I wish that all men were as I am’ (1 Cor 7:7) which I assume to mean single. Or in the next verse ‘It is good for the [unmarried] to stay unmarried.’

    Or a word to the married that it isn’t necessarily always fun and games: ‘those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.’ (1 Cor 7:28).

    I agree with you that for those who are not married, or who cannot take up the challenge it must have been excruciating to sit through those messages.

    Here in Australia churches pander to young families while singles and the elderly are either unconsciously or deliberately pushed to the side.

    A gimmick like this one doesn’t show pastoral sensitivity, even to the married.

    LikeLike

14. Josh S:

    It does take the convert-apologists to put a spin on it because anyone who grew up in it, was educated in it, knows the truth; and that is that the supposed true church is not true. I will not bore you with the ridiculous advice I and my betrothed received while we were going through our pre-Cana counseling. That ridiculous advice came from our parishener sponsors and the priest who married us. After 28 years of marriage, I can assure you the advice they gave us was not accurate.

    I will stick with my former comment. I would rather be an evangelical and apologize with regards to the Ed Youngs out there than deal with the silliness I experienced through the years as a RC. Those who wish to convert only need look at the famous cradle to grave RCs to know what is in store for the children they will raise as RCs.

    LikeLike

15. Ah this is sad. I’m reading all sorts of double-entendres into everything now, including phrases like “churches will shrink to a more natural size.”

    Might this be a definite harm that needs to be considered right along with any possible benefits that might be had in being really, super, in-yo-face, look-at-me discussion of sex?

    Is there really no ground for a reasonable discussion of sex – one that doesn’t automatically engender jokes and mockery? Jesus was mocked, but not because he was so corny and ridiculous. He was mocked because no one could counter what he said, and so they just had to dismiss him.

    Does anyone really think that this mockery of Young’s message/method is just because he is so incredibly profound? Does anyone really think that this sort of treatment of sex will make people sit up and pay attention to the wisdom of God’s Word?

    Or, is it ever so much more likely that the world will laugh and jeer at the ridiculous Christians? Does not the obvious reaction (read the beginning comments on the CBS story) of just about everyone who hears about this not give people a clue?

    But, hey what does that Ed poser know? If he wants I can give him tips on my 30-days-90-different-positions plan. That’s, like, uber cool! That’ll pack in the auditorium!

    LikeLike

16. what causes cognitive dissonance for me is how evangelicals can be so focused and steadfast in talking about sex from the pulpit on the stage while seeming to be critical of OTHER people bringing the subject of sex or sexuality on to the stage. The dissonance for me has something to do with the culture war/countercultural claims evangelicals can get into. Doug Wilson once wrote that the word “obscene” derievs from the Latin stage instruction “off stage” and that obscenity is when something that should be off stage is dragged on stage. The tension/contradiction people may be sensing as a matter of conscience (or sense) is it seems strange for evangelical preachers to talk about sex for months from the pulpit when 1) it is not necessarily the good news of Christ and 2) the same evangelical pastors would likely say that for conscience reasons they don’t watch R-rated movies that have sexual content.

    LikeLike

17. BTW I think you can ignore celibacy and Mary and still have a lot to talk about. They really don’t have to be part of the conversation.

    Of course your basic post was really about mega-church excess and publicity. In my opinion it’s at the expense of the Gospel. What’s this reference to a dog or tongue-in-cheek to a seal? Another circus sideshow act pretending to be Christian? I think any high profile attention grabbing stunt has to be looked on with suspicion. If that’s what it takes to fill a mega-church then soon enough the entertainment will degrade even further or the churches will shrink to a more natural size.

    LikeLike

18. Did anybody Else think about how this is going to go in a culture of breathless, FAKE Evangelical testimonials?

    Has anybody else thought about the fact that people lie to one another about how “great” their lovemaking skills are – are, taking this challenge, obligated to do so IN CHURCH?!?

    Some people are signing themselves up for 30 days of being badly kissed and oppressively humped, but they’re also going to have to say, at the end of it all, with a straight face how they “felt the Spirit move” inside them and how they’ve never had it better.

    Because that’s the culture we’ve created.

    This idea sucks.

    LikeLike

19. Fair enough Michael – maybe my take was off topic too

    LikeLike

20. All I know of Ed is that everytime I see him on TV, by BS detector goes off. The guy spends entirely way too much time dressing and talking as if he were a 15 year old. But on to the point. I am a man. I like sex. It makes me laugh when men talk about having great sex. Great sex as opposed to what? Bad Sex? It reminds me of a joke I once heard. Did I ever tell you about the worst sex I ever had? It was awsome!

    LikeLike

21. I don’t think my original post was about a serious discussion on sex. I was fired up at the humiliation this will put thousands of older pastoral couples through when some of their members start in on this as the way to attract a crowd.

    I resent the way megachurch pastors do whatever they want and are protected by their fan clubs. “Yes, we clubbed a seal in the sermon, but there was a good reason.”

    It’s not my job to tell anyone where to go to church. God bless all the people who got saved by the seven day sex challenge or donkey basketball or Christian poker or burning bloggers at the stake. Whatever.

    My job is to use my writing to make people think and to know they aren’t the only ones.

    BTW, the RCC has some good stuff on sex, but the celibacy issue and the perpetual non-sexual Mary makes that a little difficult to share with Protestants.

    LikeLike

22. I wonder what happens at the end of the 7 days when a couple who did the challenge, and maybe even enjoyed it, goes back to church and finds they aren’t gushing with rapture or displaying affection more publicly like some of the other couples.

    LikeLike

23. Maybe the thread should end – it certainly highlights how difficult it is to have a serious conversation about sex and the Church. There is doubtless an important Christian contribution to this topic but I think Ed has missed it. Sex is diminished in the absence of love. Within the sacrament of marriage, under the veil of love and open to life sex allows us to participate and cooperate with God in the creation of new life. It can be both beautiful and sacred.

    However today’s culture reduces sex to a simple meaningless pleasure without consequences (or at least consequences that can be easily removed for the sake of convenience, if you have no conscience). To a much lesser degree, let’s be fair, Ed’s light treatment also diminishes sex.

    Also, any pastor who reads the Bible has to see the many obvious major pitfalls around sexual desire (two commandments for example). To gleefully boast about his own sex life the Pastor practically invites covetousness.

    There’s a serious Christian treatment of sex that we really can use, like that described in Paul VIs Humane Vitae (Human life) or Benedict XVI s “Deus Caritas Est” (God is love) or writings from John Paul II “Theology of the Body”. These writers have been trying to elevate our understanding of sex, rather than the culture which seeks to reduce it to nothing. Dismissing Christians as prudes is a misunderstanding. Christians seeks to retain the beauty and meaning of sex. It is our culture that seeks to damage sex by enforcing a “if it feels good do it mentality” and literally killing those who make that view inconvenient (ie the unborn). Anyone who advocates any rational restraint is labelled a prude. Modesty and Chastity were once widely regarded Christian virtues. A really brave cutting edge Pastor might preach on those.

    Ed is clearly enjoying himself with this gimmick, and that too diminishes the subject.

    There Michael, hopefully that’s more on topic.

    LikeLike

24. I remember a Focus on the Family article that talked about how husbands needed to be noble and self-sacrificing towards their wives by taking them out to dinner and. . .er, being “romantic”. I was young and inexperienced but even I knew that getting dinner and sex wasn’t exactly a sacrifice. I suppose a corollary is football and beer-drinking as spiritual disciplines?

    LikeLike

25. Michael, this thread is fun …. let it go. At least its making me smile. 🙂

    LikeLike

26. Hmmmm

    wasn’t the 7 day challenge in revelation somewhere. 🙂

    LikeLike

27. Boethius, the reason this is a draw to Catholicism for many evangelicals is that, despite the flying houses and indulgences, Catholicism is a basically a serious religion. This sort of evangelicalism doesn’t even deserve to be called a religion. It’s nothing more than a schtick. You’ve got a lot of disillusioned evangelicalism clawing around for something that at least looks like a serious religion, and Catholicism puts on a pretty good face, especially the way the convert-apologists spin it.

    LikeLike

28. I work with a girl who is pregnant with her third. She’s miserable all the time. I wonder what she would think if her pastor said I want all the couples to have seven days of sex?

    I wonder what the couple in the midst of terrible marriage problems would think? Particular if the problems involved sexual issues?

    I wonder what the man who demands sex no matter how he’s acted in the home thinks?

    I wonder what 18 year old boys think about marriage when they hear about the 7 day challenge?

    What do couples who have sex once a week and like it that way think?

    What do people with six kids and no time think?

    Or does it matter what they think…as long as the sensational promotion gets the attention of the crowd.

    LikeLike

29. OK — On topic(though I’m still most interested in the topic I wrote about above and most eager for your concluding post on disillusionment)

    Yes, I think the difference between teaching on sexuality and sitting on a bed with your wife and enacting a seven day sex challenge should be obvious.

    And yes, I think the latter is not only absurd but even dangerous, not because it claims to be normative but because of what it suggests as normative. As one commenter put it he’s putting his kids in a class to learn “how great and awesome sex is between a husband and wife.” The biggest problem I have with this 7 day sex thing, the idea of “great and awesome Christian sex”(though I’m not saying the commenter in question is taking it quite this far), and other recent Evangelical sex fests, is that it takes and image from contemporary American culture its chief end — the image of “great and awesome sex.” It is immediately analagous to the cover girl and problems girls have with ‘body image.’

    If “great and awesome” sex is what God ordained for you, then what if you’re not having great and awesome sex? How far should you go to fix it?

    It has nothing to do with what Paul was talking about, which was almost certainly the coercive denial of sex to one’s partner. The sexual politics of Corinth are the backdrop of the whole treatment and boy were they interesting. This is not about making “good sex” an end and creating a Christian version of Dr. Ruth. It’s about keeping husbands and wives (one flesh) in fundamental unity with each other and taking sexual power games out of play as a means to that end.

    LikeLike

30. I think the problem lies in the presentation of sex as being one of the most pressing spiritual needs Christians have.

    Every day we are bombarded by a culture that has made almost every aspect of life sexual in some way. Whether it’s a commercial for toothpaste, innuendo in TV programs, or a piece on CNN about the 7 day sex challenge, we are constantly being told that sex is what is important as a human being.

    Why do we need church to add to that.

    It’s as if the message is,”Yes..the world is right. Sex is numero uno. If you all do it the right way you will have a fulfilled and happy life. Let me tell you how.”

    It’s an obsession with our culture that has leaked into the church.

    The church needs to, and has to, address certain aspects of sexuality. But by no means do we need to hand out “How To” manuals in the Sunday morning service.

    LikeLike

31. And we’re wondering why so many Christians are being disillusioned by the church. It’s because of “stunts” like this, and not focusing on the grace and goodness of our Lord.

    LikeLike

32. OK. This thread is about to end.

    If you want to talk about the 7 Day Sex Challenge, great.

    But I will not post anything else that implies critics of the 7 Day Sex Challenge are anti Young, anti Fellowship Church, anti teaching on sex and so on.

    And if you want to call me names, just send it to my email, because its not showing up here.

    Get it on topic or this thread is closed.

    LikeLike

33. I am curious what exactly it is that Mr. Young did wrong?

    I think the 7 day idea is rather silly, but I think a ton of what different churches do is silly.

    Methodology is one thing. Writing him off as if he is a know it all or some kind of perv is another.

    Is he being lewd? Seems to me that he is not nearly as blunt as the scriptures.

    Is he really using sex as a bait to get people in the church or has the church’s neglect of the subject (except for the prohibitions) raised the attention of the news media and drawn all this attention?

    Is there some info besides the CNN coverage that everyone seen and are basing their comments on?

    LikeLike

34. Joel, I appreciate you. 🙂
    GOod summary of what did, has, and will happen on this comment thread.

    LikeLike

35. I think my favorite parts of the comment thread are 1) people don’t need to hear every week that they need Jesus (of course, translated into fire and brimstone type language) and defending this kind of sermon series by saying “Jesus didn’t have time for a teaching on this because his mission was narrow and time sensitive.” Kind of like the mission of today’s preachers!

    And there’s nothing wrong with teaching about sex in the church. We’re taking our young ‘uns through a program in the Spring so that they will have a healthy and godly view of how great and awesome sex is between a husband and wife. That’s called discipleship and we have a time and place for that outside the proclamation of the Gospel on Sunday mornings.

    LikeLike

36. Nicole,

    It’s not that teaching about sex is wrong, as it is a very important part of life which the Church does need to pastorally address. It’s the methods Ed Young chose which are bizare and inappropriate.

    LikeLike

37. Thanks for the clarification, I just wanted to make sure. I also thought that he should keep his sex life private, it was very demeaning to his wife.

    LikeLike

38. Oh my…..

    No one is against teaching the Christian sexual ethic. What church DOESN’T Teach it.

    But can’t you see the world of difference between teaching it and HAVING A SEVEN DAY SEX CHALLENGE??

    I’ve taught about sex for decades. SO have most decent preachers and communicators.

    But have I SIT MY WIFE UP ON STAGE TO TALK WITH ME ABOUT OUR SEX LIFE WHILE SITTING ON A BED???

    Isn’t the difference obvious?

    MS

    LikeLike

39. imonk,

    I made the claim that a open discussion about the pleasures of sex and God’s encouragement towards us enjoying them eliminates the stigma.

    I do not personally know anyone who has made positive steps towards honestly examining Christianity solely on the eliminating of just this one stigma, but if we are going to believe anything that unbelievers say we would have to admit that the stigma of being prudes has certainly been a factor in unbelievers dismissing us altogether. Those people i have met.

    Ultimately the point should be to represent God, Christianity, and scripture as faithfully as we can and eliminate, to whatever degree we can, false views of them.

    I personally don’t believe in the seeker format at all. I think that all the church gathered should be focus on those who at least claim to be believers, but for the health of the Church itself I think it is necessary to talk openly about sex both from the pulpit and in conversation and that the conversation should be more than just the prohibitions.

    We are exhorted to enjoy the pleasure of sex with our spouses and over all that is just never brought up. Driscoll and Young are and I think that is a good thing.

    The church that I am presently part of did a pretty good job when going through 1 Corinthians of dealing with the whole issue you are free to check it out here:http://l2today.com/ICorinthians.html

    LikeLike

40. Ok, I’m confused.
    Are you (you being those commenting here) against teaching sex and sexuality in church?
    If so, why?
    Didn’t God create those as both good things to be held up as sacred?
    If people don’t hear it in church or from Christian speakers, then the only teaching coming across is from the world. As a 17 year old girl, the message I got was, “lose your virginity ASAP, it’s a burden, have one night stands, and in marriage use sex as a way to manipulate your husband.” Needless to say, I was thrilled to come across Theology of the Body.
    I am honestly scared to think of what would have become of me had I not run across this book and other Christian teachings on sexuality.
    Am I just reading this board wrong?

    LikeLike

41. i don’t like it when a public forum gets comments deleted with a little snip like “get professional help buddy”

    WTF

    Read a bible. Pray for yourself and then those who you get your grummy fingers on. If anyone needs help here…its big brother running this blog.

    LikeLike

42. Whats wrong with Ed Young Jr? He’s just following in a long line of screwed up pastors. Look at his dad. Big mega church with a million campuses. Jr. will never be dad…unless….

    LikeLike

43. Here’s some of my favorite logic from blog commenters:

    “The entire series is called “Loving your Neighbor.” Now when Roger shot the dog on stage, it was all part of a point about not being mean to your neighbor, but being Christlike. If you know his heart and what the whole series is about the dog shooting isn’t that big a deal.”

    DO you people hear yourselves?

    MS

    LikeLike

44. Kyle’s comments are [Mostly] removed. Kyle, you need to get some professional help buddy.

    LikeLike

45. Phil_style:

    I have a job. I do not sit in front of this computer. I just saw the comment.

    If you are going to dawg me about comment moderation, please get the basic facts straight. DO you think I agree with every comment that goes through while I’m at work?

    MS

    LikeLike

46. Maybe, and I know that this is a crazy thought, teaching couples about sex is an important part of discipleship. Or perhaps it would be better just to take out all of the times that the Bible is fairly blunt about sex and sexuality, because, evidently those parts aren’t spiritual enough. If we are supposed to be so “hush-hush” about sex, maybe the Bible should take a cue from us and keep it quiet. Or maybe preachers who claim to believe and teach what the Bible teaches should spend a little more time on the topic.

    LikeLike

47. CB Sowers:

    I’m about to edit your comment.

    You act as if Fellowship church and all they’ve ever done has been criticized when one stupid idea was criticized.

    You take a post about talking too much about sex and make me the opponent of all that’s good about a church.

    Ridiculous. Actually worse than ridiculous.

    MS

    LikeLike

48. Those of you who say sex needs to be talked about in church….

    What church do you have in mind that is on record as being against marital sex?

    Please be specific.

    peace

    MS

    LikeLike

49. George C:

    >Many people disregard Christianity as even an option because of stigmas of what God expects rather than what He actually does. A public discussion of the pleasures of sex eliminates one of those stigmas.

    Please cite one person who has reconsidered Christianity because of a seeker sermon on how Christians think its good to have sex.

    You made the claim. I’d like to be convinced.

    peace

    MS

    LikeLike

50. I watched the youtubecom video of the CNN coverage and honestly think most of you are just showing why so many people Christian or otherwise are happy to hear that God is not offended by married people enjoying sex together.

    Yeah, the whole 7 days thing and Driscoll’s everybody’s the same in their appetites and needs attitude is wrong, but most people rightfully think that Christians are sexually repressed prudes.

    Mr. Young apparently was not just saying that it is ALL just about pleasure, but if you don’t drag all of your insecurities and Victorian prudishness into your reading the Song of Solomon, you would be hard pressed to find any example of love being expressed that was not erotic in nature.

    The fact that someone cannot talk about married sex being fun without having an obligation to always and every time bring in the bonding aspect or the potential perils makes me wonder how some people suffer their ways through the scriptures, which ofter only show one side of the coin in a particular passage.

    Mr. Young should be grinning. Sex was son fun for Solomon that he burst into song and then called it “The Song Of Songs”.

    Many people disregard Christianity as even an option because of stigmas of what God expects rather than what He actually does. A public discussion of the pleasures of sex eliminates one of those stigmas. Both Driscoll and Young could have done better jobs, but they are doing a better job than most preachers that I have heard (mostly silence really) on the subject.

    LikeLike

51. Sex sells. Look at us here. 75 posts and climbing. — Willoh

    Willoh, the only thing that makes a Christian blog’s comment thread explode faster than “Sex sells” is a Creation-vs-Evolution fight or an End Time Prophecy knock-down-drag-out. Both of which are very popular these days.

    Those who find this a perfect opportunity to really make hay with all kinds of satire, inuendo and Woody Allen-esque sex jokes. — Myrrdin

    Well, when the “Grinning Ed” sermon that set IMonk off and started this thread hands you such a perfect lead-in and straight line…

    And I think IMonk still has one “Evangelical Concerns” still to go: The conclusion to the other four.

    DD — Kyle reminds me all too much of an infamous Usenet troll on alt.fan.furry around a decade ago. I very much doubt Mike Hirtes got religion and changed his handle to “Kyle”, but the rant style and Abominable Fancy gloating is just so similar.

    P.S. Has anybody else noticed that both Grinning Ed’s and Blinky Osteen’s wives look like they came from Central Casting? As in “stock HAWT trophy wife” (except Osteen got the “Stepford Wives” parody version)?

    LikeLike

52. Hmmmmm …. I have a deep sympathy with and have seriously enjoyed (though without spraying my oatmeal at the table) three very diiferent threads of the dialogue here:

    1) Those who think this Ed Young Jr. guy is just NUTS (gee willikers the puns are impossible to avoid here), that he represents a visions that has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ and that the proper response to this is anger.

    2) Those who think those who make claims like #1 are way too judgmental and need to take a look in the mirror.

    3) Those who find this a perfect opportunity to really make hay with all kinds of satire, inuendo and Woody Allen-esque sex jokes. (Speaking of which, this really should be the context for the next Woody Allen film … or perhaps the Coen brothers.)

    But now, a serious, serious question that I think goes the heart of the whole project of this site–which is iMonk’s “dispatches from a post evangelical wilderness”:

    What is the AIM, with respect to the church, of engaging in any of the above? (And I AM assuming there really COULD BE one … this is NOT a rhetorical question.)

    Can post-Evangelicalism come out of the wilderness? Or will ‘post Evangelical’ (for however long it lasts and that won’t be long if it doesn’t engage in culture forming activity) always be an identity modeled on the therapy session? Can post-Evangelicals become something more than recovering Evangelicals in therapy with each other?

    iMonk, what if the answer to that question entirely depended upon how you addressed the four concerns you have raised?

    LikeLike

53. Sir,

    As the pastor of his church, Rev. Young is most responsible to God for what he preaches and how he serves.

    For me, as I have seen some of the videos (from fellowship church and CNN) and have listened to other podcasts from pastors like Mark Driscoll on the issue of sex, I am impressed most with the general lack of dignity that characterizes these presentations and discussions (Titus 2.1-8). As a pastor, I must be careful not to throw pearls before swine. Neither should I profane what is holy to tickle the ears in accordance with the desires of the secular culture (2 Timothy 4.3-5).

    Thank you for the post and the opportunity to participate.

    Yours,
    Lee

    LikeLike

54. Sex sells. Look at us here. 75 posts and climbing. “London Presbytry” or whatever received 3 comments. Examine thyself. You want to pack a church do “Song of Solomon ” The rock opera, original lyrics.

    LikeLike

55. I am totally unappreciated in my time…

    LikeLike

56. My opinion is openness needs to be ALWAYS be fostered in Churches …. although I am sure I am using open differently from you … :).

    Anyhow its all about Christ and His Bride the Church.

    Song of Songs does it make the idea of physical and spiritual intimacy a holy conversation? Thats a question not an answer…. :).

    LikeLike

57. Joel Hunter wrote: “____ Since Pastor Ed’s topic is more likely to get many unchurched people into church where they will get saved….”

    ——–What next? I can just see it; the stripper for Christ who appeared on Donuhue years ago. Oops, might need a new stipper though as the old one may be 6 ft. under by now.

    ——–Joel, you can scream at this statement, but you can’t disprove it. I doubt very much if ANYONE will “get saved” because of Ed’s sex sermons. If unbelievers showed up to hear that sermon, I believe they were moved by their lust, not by the Holy Spirit.
    fishon

    LikeLike

58. And for the record, I agree that problems with intimacy should be looked at with a wider scope than sex, but, again, it seemed that’s what the sermon series was about.

    LikeLike

59. I don’t endorse his methods …
    But from what I understand from Chris and CB’s comments, his heart was in the right place with the sermon series (leaving lust behind and adopting a God-honoring view of sex). I think an unashamed biblical view of sex is a wonderful and much-needed message for the church.

    I haven’t listened to the sermons, nor have I ever attended the church or done much research into it. So I can’t make a fully-educated judgment. Here’s an honest, humble question: How many of the above angry commenters have listened to the sermons or done their homework on Fellowship before passing their judgments?

    LikeLike

60. C B Bowers,

    “If you’re curious”….

    Nobody was. But your comment magnifies the problem that Ed Young embodies: Nobody was curious about your sex life.

    Should we be?

    A pastor is nobody special – he’s a guy we have tell us stuff about the Bible. Ideally, everybody can do that.

    Is this “openness” a good thing? Is this something we should be curious about with one another, as a Christian Community (TM)? I have no problem with it outside of church, but I’m not so sure I buy into all this holy frankness – especially when, as Michael pointed out, it’s largely going to function as a membership drive gimmick.

    LikeLike

61. I actually think sex needs to be talked about in Churches… although not always from the pulpit.

    The reason is as I once heard is … Sex is powerful in both negative and positive ways in todays world. We need to tranform our sinful sex (false intimacy) into real intimacy.

    Intimacy with Christ and intimacy with our spouses…. Spiritual and emotional intimacy which will lead to physical intimacy in Gods provisions for man.

    I think Churches have lost the romance of Christ to his bride in order to be “religious” and overbearing… ie Power over others (mans method) as opposed to power under( Christs method).

    My .02c worth,

    JS

    LikeLike

62. Kyle, I’m not sure comments like “I could blow something up” have any place in this discussion.

    Michael, I am surprised you have let the comment stand, albeit that perhaps the comment was hyperbole – it’s still an extreme sentiment.

    LikeLike

63. Kyle,
    First, I want you to know I wasn’t directing my comment to anyone in particular. If you felt singled out that was not my intention. Secondly, it is OUR job to uphold the purity of God’s kingdom. You are not to be a lone ranger. We are a Body not a stand alone hero. Thirdly, I doubt very much that Ed went to CNN. I imagine they came to him. Since that is probably the case, he had to make a decision. Maybe it was right. Maybe it was wrong, but either way he made a decision to try and present his side. Don’t we all try to present our side when we have the chance? Lastly, Jesus’ anger had a point and a lesson to teach. Does yours?

    Chris

    LikeLike

64. Monk,

    You’re right on target with this. I do believe sex is very important in a marriage but what’s more important is the emotional connection between the couple. And that’s the problem with most marriage’s today. A lot of couple’s relationships were formed from their sexual bond instead of an emotional one. And once the sex life slows down they realize they don’t really know each other and are not connected. So what Ed Young is telling us is to get back in the bedroom and everything will work it self out, or if you’re single find someone your sexually compatible with before you get married. Well of course that’s the wrong answer. If these couple’s would work on their intimacy outside the bedroom the marriage and sex life would greatly improve. Sex is just part of the expressions of the love and commitment that should already be there….Chris

    LikeLike

65. “I’m getting a ticket to Iran and checking out the Islamic faith. Maybe I can find some purity there.”

    “Sick and tired of the sex/pornographic culture of America.”

    “Ready for the Kingdom to come so all this immorality will be dust and ash.”

    “The great whore of Babylon who has made the world drunk with her adulteries will be drowning in her filth in the lake of fire.”

    “No longer will I hear filth or trash or sexual immorality.”

    “The church will be free from the influence of this godless nation.”

    Kyle,

    You need to seek counseling. Sex is obviously a HUGE stumbling block to you. The fact that you repeatedly equate married couples having sex and admitting it or liking it with immorality, wickedness and sin tells me you are really screwed up. I’m sorry about whatever has happened to you to make you hate God given intimacy so much that you label the acknowledgement of it “filth”.

    You are right in one regard. Sex is screwed up in this country. Badly. The World has had total control over the image and ideas people have about sex for 100 years…certainly since the 1950’s. These concepts about sex have even filtered into the church. We have taught generations of kids that sex is bad. Not just wrong, but bad. When they get out of our little enclaves they find out that sex is fun. Most of the people they meet don’t suffer from all the things they were told happened by having sex. They find that they have been lied to all their lives.

    We have failed because we have been prudes. I have heard preachers say that any sexual conduct that can not create a child is sin.

    All because we are afraid that to admit that we LIKE sex is somehow unholy. Sex within the marriage covenant is a God given delight. The writer of Hebrews calls the acts done between married couples “undefiled”. To deny that there is a sexual component to the Song of Solomon is to be intentionally obtuse.

    It’s because of all these horrible, sinful images and ideas the World preaches and the Church’s complete silence on the topic that have led to this generation of people who are completely screwed up about sex. They NEED teaching on the subject. They have no idea what is good and what is not. Should the Pastor counsel each couple individually on each and every question they have or should he preach it to the congregation and stop the cycle of pretending that sex, even with your spouse, is dirty and sinful?

    Yes, it can be taken too far. However, the fact that people are calling a church that encourages MARRIED couples to have sex a “cult” is ample proof of how distorted our view of something God endorses has become.

    “And I will be laughing as the world burns…”

    I’m sure your unsaved family members appreciate the sentiment.

    DD

    LikeLike

66. Chris G:

    I respect your authority as an associate pastor and as a man. I do not retract any of my statements though. Jesus told the Pharisees, “he without sin cast the first stone” when they were about to kill a woman caught in adultery. But when they were selling pigeons in the temple he went through there like a madman and turned the tables over. If Ed wasn’t a pastor it would be different. If he didn’t take the story to CNN so the entire world could laugh at the church it would be different. If he used widsom and tact would be different. But he knew the sexual addiction of the country and the church, and he used it to draw attention. We’ll let God be the judge. I am neither ashamed nor repentant. It’s my job to uphold the respect of God’s Kingdom. If I’m wrong I’m wrong.

    Thanks,

    Kyle

    LikeLike

67. It was interesting to hear from a member (a good friend) of Fellowship where i ws curious where he stood on the outcry – Check it out. What do you think?

    ” guess I might stand where (possibly you & obviously many others) stand if all I read about this issue were the negative blogs and people’s opinion of the subject when they themselves weren’t there to hear the entire 3 week series and put this one aspect in its proper perspective. But fortunately I’ve been around long enough to give others the benefit of the doubt when I don’t know the whole story instead of having a predetermined, negative strategy about what Ed and Fellowship might be trying to accomplish through this series and the challenge of 7 days in a row. (If you’re curious I only made it 2 days and then got sick..not from the sex)

    Where do I stand? The message series was “Leaving Lust Vegas” and dealt with the subject of lust and how its tentacles can pull us in and ruin our lives (big picture). There was a lot of good stuff for married couples. I had a guy I’ve been discipling for a while and one of his problems has been “wandering eyes”. He said after a week of sex he doesn’t even want to think about it. Now obviously I know that is only one week and it may not solve his problem. But if a man is drawn closer to his wife because there is more regular intimate contact and it lessens or cures his lustful eyes, then AMEN to that. Do I think expository preaching of the word can accomplish the same thing? Yes. But I also believe God uses all kinds of preaching to accomplish His purpose.

    I thought that some of it was a bit over the top, but a lot of things Fellowship does are over the top. Does that make it wrong? I don’t think so. Does that make it un-Godly or less Godly? I don’t think so. It was a little rough I thought for the younger teenagers. In the first message Ed used a toilet as a prop on stage and it was very powerful. I will tell you this. He didn’t say one thing…not one thing….that I heard (I Missed last week with a fever)…that I disagreed with. He was right on, honest, frank and true. Lisa also spoke for a few minutes from a woman’ perspective and she was dead on as well. It wasn’t the best series Ed’s ever done, but it certainly was a good series. [MODERATOR EDItED]

    I think the only problem I had was with the whole media attention. Isn’t it funny that the only time the media wants to get involved with church is when there is some sort of financial scandal or sex. But the minute the local media heard about it, it was all over the papers, radio and TV. Then of course the national media picked it up and the whole thing turned into a circus. I suspect that Ed did the interviews for two reasons. One, to make sure he got his point across so the story wasn’t completely twisted (instead of just partially twisted) and two, raise awareness about Fellowship Church. (These are my thoughts only.) I also suspect that after the firestorm of attention he may choose not to do it again. (Again my thoughts)

    [MODERATOR EDITED: Way off topic and basically accusing us of denigrating everything good about Young’s church. That’s simply false.]

    LikeLike

68. A friend of mine sent me the link for this blog. Very interesting reading. As an Assitant Pastor in a reformed tradition, I have my own hang-ups with how alot of mega-churches are done. In fact there is a youtube video some of you might want to track down comparing the marketing of starbucks to the church. I can’t remember what it is called exactly, something to do with marketing…anyway. I am disapointed to see such attacking of another brother as I have read on these posts. Attack the methodology if you want, but the personal attacks are too far. “He who is without sin…” I have listened to the whole series on sex from Ed and he DOES address adultery, infidelity, porngraphy, divorce, etc. He also has awsome sermons on stewardship and finances. He has preached tremendous messages about the cross and the redeption only found in Christ. He has verbally stated numerous times that they do what they do to get people in the door to hear about Jesus. How many of you honestly know all these things? Did you take the time to look into what he has done and said before jumping on the bandwagon to bashing Ed Young Jr.? You should be ashamed of your reponses and should be led to repentance over your horrible public choice of words. Ed Young is not is the same category as Joel Olsteen or Robert Schuler and to make that comparison is unjust and ungrounded.

    LikeLike

69. Suggestion for another comment thread: What state in the United States offers the best/worst of evangelicalism? I’d say my home state has a fighting chance to win on the worst side with Ed Young Jr and Joel Osteen and John Hagee and …

    LikeLike

70. I would totally participate in this if I had a girlfriend.

    Wait..

    LikeLike

71. terri…I understand your argument, but I would also argue that having that host of women was exactly why he fell into sin with Bathsheba. He was already living in sin. If he would have worked to be satisfied with his wife and continued to work with her to cultivate a biblical intimacy, he would have been more guarded against that.

    LikeLike

72. Monk, I like what you said “Try and preach regular sermons from the Bible now. See where the crowd is when the dog and pony show is over.

    Talk about discipleship. Or stewardship. Or world hunger. Or some other sexy topic.”

    Ed get’s under my skin. He tries to hard to look pretty.

    Kyle, I’m ready too.

    LikeLike

73. What’s wrong with pounding and pounding away at biblical application and erecting a huge ministry that lubricates people’s entry into the church, satisfies their most urgent longings and penetrates deep into their…hearts? — Andrew

    I WAS eating breakfast when I read that, Andrew. Almost sprayed oatmeal all over my monitor.

    At least your line got Bridal Mysticism right, full-strength on the rocks instead of the watered-down “Jesus Is My Boyfriend” praise chorus version they drink today.

    P.S. Andrew’s comment is also the type of dialog I was trying to describe in the “Bob the Tetanus Boy” commercial. Grinning Ed, meet Grinning Bob…

    LikeLike

74. Oh…and last time I checked, King David had a whole host of women to fulfill his needs, but still managed to fall into sin with Bathsheba.

    LikeLike

75. Joel:

    I’m gonna reply with as much tact as possible.

    I will check none of your boxes. I’ll check this box:

    ___ Sick and tired of the sex/pornographic culture of America. Absolutely disgusted that the guy can’t draw “unchurched” people by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Disgusted with the lack of respect the church has gained because of stunts like this. Believe that the sacredness of man and wife is essentially a private matter. Believe that people who need counseling in this area do so in a respectful matter. Ready for the Kingdom to come so all this immorality will be dust and ash.

    That’s my box Joel.

    LikeLike

76. The boys are coming to church now. What will grinning Ed say next?

    Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that line. “Grinning Ed (TM)”.

    You see, years ago there was this commercial for a “natural male enhancement” (i.e. boner pills) whose name I don’t remember. I only remember the commercial; a guy named “Bob” (who was “very happy” using the product) whose face was frozen in a tetanus-like grin. (I didn’t know tetanospasmin was erotic…) The commercial was basically Bob grimacing silently in his risus sardonicus while the narrator (and other on-screen characters) make double-entendre after double-entendre. One of those things you can’t forget because it’s so awful.

    And when you said “Grinning Ed (TM)”, I immediately flashed on Bob the Tetanus Boy.

    LikeLike

77. Thank your for this post. I fortunately left that church after going to the first “At the movies” sermon, Ed on the big screen talking about fear and playing parts of Jaws. With popcorn and soda handed out before hand! I have since found a bible preaching church just down the road from us where our family is very happy. My wife really appreciates your humor, keep it up!

    LikeLike

78. And the reporters are interested, because your church isn’t talking about God. It’s talking about sex so it can talk about God.

    Uhhh, IMonk, everybody…

    Don’t humans have a real crappy track record of mixing the sacred and the erotic? Like all those Canaanite fertility cults that surrounded (and tried to infiltrate) ancient Judaism?

    It’s like with humans Sacred/Divine + Erotic/Sexual = Epic Fail somewhere down the line.

    LikeLike

79. Their wrong thinking doesn’t make the bible wrong.

    I never said it did.

    LikeLike

80. For the convenience of those who see the silver lining in every Cat 5 hurricane, who see the beauty of the streaking comet just before impact at Muleshoe, Texas, here is a list of certified, pre-manufactured responses to this post. Just check the appropriate blank and deposit your response in the IM comment box. The management thanks you for your concern.

    ____ If you think Pastor Ed is doing something wrong, did you bother to approach him in private about your concerns before broadcasting your complaints publicly?

    ____ You must have some sexual hang-ups.

    ____ Since Pastor Ed’s topic is more likely to get many unchurched people into church where they will get saved, what does it matter if you think it’s a little over the top?

    ____ Great. Another blogger dogging on the megachurch. You make me and the baby Jesus cry.

    ____ If this is what people in Pastor Ed’s church want, or if this topic is what Pastor Ed believes his church needs to hear, what gives you the right to say it’s such a bad thing?

    ____ You’re just jealous [circle one:]
    of Ed
    of Ed’s ministry
    that you didn’t think of the idea first.

    LikeLike

81. Their wrong thinking doesn’t make the bible wrong. Paul doesn’t say being married solves the problem. He says it helps. And he’s directing completely natural sexual urges into the correct context, marriage.

    LikeLike

82. The writer of Hebrews? please explain.

    I am not saying that Paul is misguided. I am not saying that sex doesn’t have a biological component. I am saying it’s not the root of the problem for most people.

    LikeLike

83. I would only say that there are many single christians who think that the reason they stuggle in this area is because they aren’t married and have no way to alleviate their biological impulses. This sort of approach affirms that view.

    What happens when these single people marry, have willing partners and are still struggling with lust and pornography?

    Their problem was supposed to be solved. But, it’s not.

    LikeLike

84. I am outraged. Absolutely Old Testament burning up. I’m 22 years old and have been bombarded by the sex culture of America since I could walk. Every channel I turn to, every movie that comes to theaters, I can’t get away from this whore that is American culture.

    Now this idiot (yes, he’s a flaming idiot) goes on CNN and makes a mockery of God’s people. What happened to the city on the hill? As a pastor he represents the Kingdom to the world. I mean this is on CNN! What happened to the sacredness of man and wife? [Moderator edited]

    LikeLike

85. Terri said: “Think through the sermon on the Mount. Can we even imagine Jesus speaking anything remotely about this? ”

    In a sermon during his fairly narrow mission on Earth, no. He did speak about it through Paul though. Undefiled marriage beds, partners not denying one another except by agreement “but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
    1 Cor 7:5 (ESV)

    So your disagreement is with the writer of Hebrews and Paul who specifically said that having sex regularly with your spouse will cut down sexual temptation. You called St Paul “misguided.”

    DD

    LikeLike

86. PamBG wrote:Reminds me of the time that the Sunday School superintendent seemed to be suggesting that as we were seeing less small children in Sunday School these days that we might consider ‘making more disciples for Jesus’ the old fashioned way.

    There is a technical term for this. It is called Bedroom Evangelism.

    LikeLike

87. terri,

    I probably should have been more specific. I completely agree with the comments talking about the “schtick” involved here. I think Ed Young enjoys the spotlight a little too much (even though I think he does have some good intentions as well). What bothered me more is the general feeling that many of the comments contain a condemnation of sex in general. I may be reading into things, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten from some. No, Jesus wouldn’t issue a “7-day sex challenge,” but he did talk about sex a lot. My issue really isn’t about Ed Young. I just think too many Christians want to avoid talking about sex completely and “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

    As far as your 2nd point, I think what you argue against is exactly what scripture says. 1 Corinthians 7:5 – “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” He’s saying intimacy within the marriage can help safeguard you from Satan. Can it make you immune from temptation? Obviously not. But Paul obviously thinks it is helpful in fighting temptation.

    LikeLike

88. Really?

    I mean…

    Really?

    In a day and age when the Church, those who are supposed to understand the idea of “covenant” better than any one else has a divorce rate as high as the “heathen” a preacher comes out, preaches WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SEX IN MARRIAGE, and you decide to throw stones at him? All the while ignoring Tony Jones, a vaunted “Emerging” leader saying that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in the church; a practice manifestly NOT taught in the Bible.

    After all your talk about how bad the image of Evangelicalism is in the US because of any number of reasons you’re going to take shots at guys who are trying to get to that more honest Christianity you’re always pining for.

    I know you’re SBC but does EVERY sermon have to consist entirely of “You’re going to hell Jesus is the only way out” or are we allowed to have some teachings on how Christianity should affect every area of our lives?

    Yes, he’s getting media attention. How many people will it draw to his or Mars Hill’s website? How many people will give a listen to the sermons they have online out of curiosity? How many people will meet Jesus because of those sermons? Not to mention any marriages saved by rekindling their passion for each other…

    But we should mock them…and stop them.

    Because we are ashamed of sex.

    Meanwhile, welcome the new gay pastor because, you know, we’re not judgmental.

    DD

    LikeLike

89. Another point….The idea that having sex daily will somehow eliminate sexual temptation for people is misguided. Such a concept only makes sense if we see sin as merely getting our needs met in a wrong way.–If we meet our physical needs, then we won’t lust or struggle with sexual sin.

    It completely evades the spiritual aspect of sin….which is what drives most people in whatever sin they struggle with.

    hearts and minds….that’s the tough stuff to deal with.

    LikeLike

90. Matthew,

    I don’t think the mocking comes from a disapproval of sex.

    I don’t even think it has to do with a sermon about sex.

    I think the mocking is aimed at the whole “schtick” surrounding it. It’s hype. It’s glossy ads and multi-media presentations. It’s a “see how cool we are” ploy that has little to do with God.

    Think through the sermon on the Mount. Can we even imagine Jesus speaking anything remotely about this? His words on marriage have more to do with faithfulness and avoiding adulterous thoughts than they have to do with affirming marriage through lots of intercourse.

    LikeLike

91. Some of these comments are really making me sad for Christian marriages. I understand disagreeing with Ed Young’s methods, but sex is a gift from God within marriage, not something to be mocked. It’s not lust to desire your spouse (yes, even daily — it’s probably not practically possible, but what’s wrong with making it a goal?).

    Discuss the problems with his methods (and there definitely are some), but sex is addressed over and over in the Bible, so why shouldn’t pastors preach on it? By the discussion here, a non-Christian reading it would probably assume most people here believe sex is dirty and wrong, even within marriage. That’s not biblical.

    LikeLike

92. …or they could get really hip,cool and relevant just have Christian tantric sex for days and days and days and get REALLY holy.

    And babies? What babies?

    LikeLike

93. Good Lord … see … THIS is just … aaaarrghhh. Words fail me.

    But what should we actually DO about things like this?

    LikeLike

94. What this needs is a SOUNDTRACK.

    A CCM Barry White or perhaps a Charasmatic take on Marvin Gaye’s “Sexual Healing” or some disco!

    “I’m just a Christian LUST machine, and I can’t stop for nobody but you.”

    LikeLike

95. “Don’t deprive the partner that wants more sex” – namely the man?

    Since when? My general experience is that while men seem to really enjoy thinking about sex, talking about sex, and complaining that they don’t get enough sex – in reality most of them have something more like a semi-annual sex urge – especially once they get past about 35.

    It’s the woman who is practically burning alive, but since we’re not supposed to actually enjoy sex let alone want it – they don’t talk about it!

    LikeLike

96. Will there be t-shirts? Dare I suggest “____ing for Jesus.”

    I was also struck with the part of the post about how many people are excluded: the singles, the engaged, the widow/widower, the disabled. Well, tough luck for them. Maybe if they just had more faith or whatever.

    LikeLike

97. Weird gimmick its reads as puerile self serving and loveless. No discussion on the purpose of sex (generation of life in cooperation with God and closer union in marriage) or the sins of sex as a selfish pursuit (treating your spouse as an object). It makes Evangelicals even easier to mock and diminishes the brand even further. Worse it makes Christians generally seem foolish and not in the way Christ intended. If it didn’t matter it would be funny.

    LikeLike

98. I think Andy Crouch (“Culture Making”) might say
    that this is an example of Christians copying
    culture, rather than making culture, which he
    believes is part of the creation mandate.

    LikeLike

99. Perhaps these folks are not Evangelicals after all.

    LikeLike

100. I just got finished listening to Mark Driscoll’s series on the Song of Songs, and at one point, he states that the “average” couple has sex three times a week, and the “average” husband pleasures himself four times a week, so that means a couple should be having sex daily.

     With no discussion about how men and women might possibly be different. Instead, the attitude, and regular message, was “Don’t deprive one another,” meaning don’t deprive partner who wants sex more—namely the man.

     Young and Driscoll aren’t the only ones making too much about it. I have heard variations on this subject for years. And I keep thinking: God’s first command was to be fruitful and multiply. With this much sex and none of it applied towards multiplication, but all of it applied towards the pleasure (or “oneness,” as the pastors put it) of the couple, isn’t there something amiss here?

     LikeLike

101. If they cared about church growth they would sit on the bed and talk about how much they love to have sex every day if possible.

     Reminds me of the time that the Sunday School superintendent seemed to be suggesting that as we were seeing less small children in Sunday School these days that we might consider ‘making more disciples for Jesus’ the old fashioned way.

     Young males always know everything about everything which is why they shouldn’t be allowed to teach until they get older. 😉

     LikeLike

102. I am certainly not opposed to couples being diligent in the development of their sexual enjoyment, but this smacks of textbook gimmickry. It seems that many of the megachurch pastors are doing some version of the so-and-so day so-and-so challenge. IMO a personal topic like this should be dealt with in a more discreet context. There are many reasons why couples struggle sexually (time issues, abusive pasts, emotional/physical problems). A “challenge” like this will likely yield little more than a spate of publicity. As for making disciples, I’m not encouraged much will be furthered in this area either

     LikeLike

103. Hmm, anybody think it possible to be a post-evangelical pharisee?

     LikeLike

104. Well at least he’s having sex with his wife and not the church secretary. Anyhow it was only a matter of time… we’ve known for many years now that sex sells, and this isn’t the first sect to try it (the way international?). The sad thing is not so much that this guy is preaching, but rather that people are actually buying into it.

     LikeLike

105. “WE CAN HAVE SEX NOW!!!”

     “Evangelicals proclaim Young New Moses; Leads Them Out of Sexless Oppression”

     Millions of evangelicals are busily having sex today in celebration of the news that it’s OK for them to have sex.

     As an added bonus, they no longer have to hear about God in church. “God has overrun his shelf date,” said Ed Young Jr, pastor of Fellowship “Church,” as he pulled up his pants. “Sex is the most spiritually relevant topic out there. We’re speaking to people’s felt needs.”

     Senior Adults at Young’s Church announced a Viagra sponsorship for this month’s potluck luncheon.

     Meanwhile, at the Internet Monk Compound, Van Til, the BHT’s Magic Tail Chasing Wonder Dog, announced a “7 Minute Sex Sex Challenge” for the BHT.

     LikeLike

106. Andrew:

     Please write more comments. Write a comment for the next 7 days, in fact.

     LikeLike

107. I must have missed the chapter on sexology in Erickson’s “Christian Theology”. Or do they cover this topic in hermeneutics?

     🙂

     LikeLike

108. Thanks for the post. I have been trying to say “evangelical” lately without embarrassment. Young doens’t make it easier. Where do these nuts come from? I tell you where – from the belief that how many people go to your church validates your views – I mean the numbers that go to your church, not the size of your you know what. Size means more than Bible or tradition. This is the blight of evangelicalism. And other Chritian leaders won’t take these guys on because they have something to gain by that size – money, PR, etc. If they can just get one of these guys to come to their conference, then the seats will be full and their size will prove that they are worth taking seriously. What a game!!! We are dumb sheep being fleeced.

     LikeLike

109. To find out what I should think on this topic, I do what every Catholic does: ask “So, what does the Catechism say?” 😉

     “III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

     2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

     2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”

     ‘Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.’

     2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”

     Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

     ‘The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.’

     2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

     The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.”

     LikeLike

110. Okay, if this isn’t an argument for clerical celibacy… 🙂

     But the serious matter is what happens after your congregation (and let’s hope it’s confined to the married, yes?) have bonked their way through the week.

     Nine months later, you’re booked solid for christenings? or are we going to overlook the obvious result of having a lot of people having a lot of sex?

     In amongst the “texted questions about penis enlargement and various forms of non-traditional intercourse”, were there any asking about birth control or abortion? (Yeah, flogging that horse again, but I’m a Catholic – I have to find some way to be a killjoy because we hate sex, we hate women, we hate people enjoying themselves, we hate everything, right?).

     Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith find out that, thanks to Pastor Ed’s encourgement, they’re going to have a little bundle of joy – so they race down to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic?

     LikeLike

111. Seems like a reaction tot he percieved “prudishnes” of the church. I just wish people would spend their energy on dealing with the more important misconceptions about the church, like our attitude/ care for the poor, for example.

     LikeLike

112. lonelypilgrim:

     Okay, okay, so it is totally embarrassing to have Ed Young, Jr. do this but you claim this is a draw towards Catholism? As a former RC, I can assure, neither the parisherners nor the priests have anything healthy to share on the topic of sex. In fact, many of them will only lead you to pain and destruction. No, I would rather be an evangelical and apologize to others when they hear Ed Young.

     LikeLike

113. I know this is very unfair, but I can’t help but think of Ted Haggard’s proclamations about Christians (specifically evangelicals) and sex before everything fell apart there.

     I think it’s great to remind us that lust is confused with love, and that sex is cheap in our society. I think it’s important to encourage people to have a healthy outlook on sex. I’m just not sure this is it.

     Oh, and as a single person, way to make us feel left out again. As Evangelicalism becomes the cult of happy families, grinning husbands, and responding to the latest cultural war salvo, please forgive us if we don’t always jump along with the new trend.

     LikeLike

114. In a comment on a previous post I said that many churches are more social club than church. I neglected to mention that these clubs love theater. A new, sensational “show” every week. Wouldn’t you just love to be on staff there, trying to come up with a new thriller every week? It all reminds me of the stories an older gentleman used to tell me about Aimee Semple McPherson, who his father knew.

     The sad part is, people get tired of the show and move on after a few years at most. They look back at it as a “phase”, sort of like their “candle-making phase” or their “knitting phase”. Sometimes I go to garage sales and find good Christian books. Several times the sellers have commented “They’re from my Christian phase”.

     LikeLike

115. This is creepy and weird, but to be fair Crowder is still worse.

     LikeLike

116. I wonder if they have bedrooms instead of prayer rooms at this “church” so that couples can practice this spiritual discipline.

     I still think that the best tool the Catholic Church has for converting Protestants to Catholicism is stuff like this and a lot of what is on “Christian” TV channels.

     LikeLike

117. Imonk, this is more evidence of your genius writing skills. The main thing I see wrong (it kinda encompasses the whole bit) is arrogance. Seems like they care more about showing off in some perceived sex competition than anything else. What else could be the rationale for such blatant cockiness? (sorry..) Getting butts in seats? Maybe. Anything eternally valuable? Not even close.

     Andrew, you’re hilarious!!

     LikeLike

118. imonk,
     I live in Ft Worth. My wife and I (yea, I am blaming part of this on her, sounds a little like Genesis doesn’t it), anyway, we visited the newly minted fellowship church branch that opened up this last Easter in Ft Worth. We had our youngest teen daughter with us, big mistake because Ed Ed Ed must have sex sex sex on the brain, Easter Sunday sermon hardly mentioned Jesus, but had plenty of sex in it. I mean come on, Easter and we get sex.
     Mike

     LikeLike

119. I used to let ‘er fly on the internets. When I saw something crazy or idiotic, I’d loose my (limited) supply of sarcasm and mockery on the poor subject.

     In recent months I’ve tried to be more Christlike in what I do and say on the web, knowing that somebody is watching and somebody could get hurt by my sarcasm.

     I gotta say, though, Ed Young Jr. makes it harder for me to maintain that. He’d be better off ditching the sex challenge and spending a year going verse-by-verse through the Gospels. Or turn his pulpit over to Paul Washer. That would do wonders for offerings!

     (See? I told you it wasn’t easy to abstain) 🙂

     LikeLike

120. Reminded again that the Imonk was a satirist in his past life.

     maybe he should have a weekly satire column, I dont know about sex, but the church sure as hell needs some humor(sorry, bad metaphor)

     schizo

     LikeLike

121. First, Andrew, you had me rolling in the aisles. :>)

     I was unaware of this new Evangelical gimmick of the week. The thing that makes me sad is Rev. Young’s view of sex is right out of the superficial play-book of the Playboy generation. It follows the same thinking that you must live with your partner before you get married to make sure the two of you are “compatible in bed.”

     The way that I see it, sex is the icing on the cake, not the flour, eggs, flavoring and sugar combined (or superglue) as Rev. Young says. So a better technique, a better position is the key to a great marriage or even a great spirituality? It’s like having the proper technique in discipleship makes you a disciple. Sex does sell . . . if you’re buying superficiality.

     My niece is the video production engineer of a major televangelist. I won’t say who (to protect her job), but he is an Osteen wannabe with a mega church on both coasts. She allowed me to view 4 hours of raw footage that will become a cornerstone of their new ministry . . . a miracle health supplement. Her job is to edit the video material into sound bites. The “natural supplement,” if you listen carefully to all the testimonials, cures; 1) all cancers, 2) HIV AIDS, 3) spinal cord injuries, 4) Alzheimer’s Dementia, 5) Chronic Fatigue, and of course 6) poverty-the seller’s poverty. This miracle will be sold as a spin-off business from the church in a MLM scheme. Does that make really make sense? Personally, if I had a supplement that just extended the life of cancer patients by three months, I would be passing it free like candy in a forth of July parade.

     Any gimmick that’s mixed with Jesus . . . is really pathetic.

     LikeLike

122. Perhaps now celibate clergy doesn’t seem such a bad discipline? (sw)

     LikeLike

123. SAD 😦
     Although I wonder if it would have had the same draw if Evangelicalism had not spent so much time telling us that sex was evil?

     LikeLike

124. When was God replaced by the Almighty Gimmick?
     Sighs.

     Thank you, Michael.Your voice carried quite well on this side of the wilderness.

     LikeLike

125. Great stuff. I wonder if all the laughter in the sanctuary at Fellowship is from the people having their ears “tickled”.

     LikeLike

126. I felt rather embarrassed on behalf of his poor wife. And humiliated at the whole interview.

     LikeLike

127. What’s wrong with pounding and pounding away at biblical application and erecting a huge ministry that lubricates people’s entry into the church, satisfies their most urgent longings and penetrates deep into their…hearts?

     LikeLike

128. Thanks Michael for this piece. Ironically sex is getting prostituted in the name of church growth. They know people want it. They know it is sexy (and controversial) to talk about it. You are not cool (and missional) until you give them the PG-13 sex talk.

     LikeLike

129. Thank You.

     That was brilliant.

     LikeLike

130. In what kind of cult do you have to be told by your pastor that you should have sex?

     How stupid are some people?

     LikeLike

131. Don’t bother me. I’m re-writing all my sermons replacing “saved” with “laid.”

     “Have you been laid?”
     “When?”
     “How do you know you were laid?

     LikeLike

Comments are closed.