This article discusses why they should not. I would have never imagined it would even be a matter of debate - but apparently among some "younger evangelical leaders gathered in Washington D.C." it seems like a good idea. Mercy!
This article discusses why they should not. I would have never imagined it would even be a matter of debate - but apparently among some "younger evangelical leaders gathered in Washington D.C." it seems like a good idea. Mercy!
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
It's a responsible idea.
I don't want anyone who isn't married having sex. It's harmful for them and for the world. That being said, people, even people opposed to premarital sex, have sex.
If the only thing said from the pulpit is "use protection," that's irresponsible - but if there's a strong and well-supported atmosphere of sex and relationships in proper context, then contraception is part of that.
I'm not under any illusion that every single person in my congregation agrees with abstinence as a pre-marital condition; if those people are having sex (which I would prefer didn't happen) I hope they're using contraceptives.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 LaughingMarian Schwaller Carney, Dana Grant, Todd Erickson, Valisha Trammell Hall, Diane Likens, Jon Bemis, Paul DeBaufer, Meghan Schoonover - "thanks" for this post
The article just presents the age old argument, "If you allow them contraceptives you give them permission." An argument I reject both in form and substance. That said, I probably support the ideal of chastity. I certainly do not think that people given over to their sexual desires are showing love for themselves or others, IF they are objectifying either or both. In the act of reducing one or the other or both to object one violates love and Imago Dei, IMHO. (It has been my experience that there are emotional/psychological/experiential issues underlying such behaviour). However, I do not believe that every twentysomething is engaging in random, superficial sexual encounters. There are many who are in deep loving relationships and I am not sure where I stand sex within that context as sinful (hoping no kids are reading this, I really don't see the sin IF love and Imago Dei is NOT being violated and really do not see that I am wrong biblically, even if I believe chastity to be the ideal).
The author of the argument cites Romans 3:8 "8And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved!". Even if this does apply, which I do not think, as no one is arguing let people sin all the more so that grace abounds all the more, which the cited passage addresses. However, I do think that 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23, "Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial." Where Paul still calls people to holiness yet not in a legalistic way. He is calling people to love, to consider others and not be self seeking, yet not condemning them for what they do. We ought to do the loving thing, the thing that promotes the greatest love. So we preach the ideal, yet allow that the ideal is not lived up to by many. In the case of contraception strict, legalistic adherence to the ideal seems not to be the thing that promotes the greatest degree of love in the community. Unwanted pregnancy leads to many problems, not just for the parents, but for the children as well.
I do not think that contraception use by singles should necessarily be preached from the pulpit. However, I do not think that in twenty-thirtysomething groups that the subject should be shied away from. Neither should contraception be condemned as promoting sin.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We will probably be quite far apart on this subject. My views are pretty traditional (and of course, I think Biblical) in that IMO all sexual intimacy outside the boundaries of marriage is sinful. Even were that no so, I would still argue for chastity in that having sex with someone that you are not married can do long term damage to the ability to develop authentic intimacy once married. (again my opinion) My advice to the twenty-thirty something group would be the same to any group - don't do anything that can damage your relationship with God or others.Originally Posted by Paul DeBaufer
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Me too. However, along the same lines of "if you do drink, don't drive," we might add, "if you do have sex, use protection."
I'm just not sure its fair to potential offspring of such unions to avoid talking about contraception.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree this is a tough subject. However, the question in the poll was "Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?" How exactly would that happen in a way that doesn't endorse sexual activity outside of marriage? I can't imagine a way that it would work - maybe my imagination is too limited. One of the really big concerns for me is that increasingly (it seems) even people in the church see sexual expression as a "can't help it" category and so are ready to default to "they're going to do it so we might as well tell them how to do it safely." I don't see that as the right message.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't beleve it is in the "can't help it" category, but I do think it is in the "you better believe it is going to happen, and if it does, then please don't let an innocent child become part of the problem as well" category.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't really agree with this. More, I think, our teaching on sex doesn't allow for enough conversation to even approach sexual health (something that often carries over into marriage, especially for young couple).
More appropriately, the Church should be talking about sexual health. SexEd shouldn't necessarily be left to schools (or parents, for that matter). Perhaps in the course of a larger discussion of sex, the proper use on contraceptives makes more sense.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I, personally, think that sex is a highly spiritual activity and should not be engaged in lightly or trivialized. I believe that you are right in that entering into sexual relationships when one is not ready, or doing so in a superficial/trivialized manner does, indeed, damage future relationship possibilities. I know that for me, for a very long time, and there are lingering effects, that there was a complete disconnect between loving relationship and sex.
For many who were molested, used sexually as children and teens this disconnect becomes ingrained. I know this from my own experiences and from the experiences reported from others. I'm not sure it is helpful to label them sinners when they are seeking affection in the way that they were taught, the result of decisions having been made for them. Some people are broken in this area. They need to be loved as they are. Encouraged to be celibate, but loved when they aren't. And if they are broken relationally they should be using contraceptives, and encouraged to do so if they are not.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 10 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree. IF sex has spiritual aspects and relational aspects it seems the duty of the church to enter into the discussion. And enter in with more than "Only do it if you're married." People need to be taught the spiritual and relational aspects. The schools are good with the mechanics, some parents may be good at teaching other portions, but the church has a role, IMHO.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Totally unclear where I would have said that it should not. But like our teaching on sinning in general, chances are, whatever we say won't prove to be a watertight system.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think perhaps its the difference between communal and individual expectations. Certainly you can expect individuals to practice abstinence, but odds are collectively you won't have 100% success.
...just my $.02.
Exactly. And what do we do then, knowing this to be the case? We neither stop talking about sex ed., nor close our eyes for the reality we live in.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
The church seems to be more concerned about keeping our white robes clean than loving and healing those whose robes will never be white again.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The Church is made up of forgiven, cleansed, born again, "new creation" (former) sinners. If our robes are white robes are clean, we should be sharing the GOOD NEWS that their robes can be white and clean again!
Added former sinners (as we once were), did not want to imply that their is no difference between a sinner and a Christian.
My Prayer: Father, use me until I am used up, then call me home and may I hear "well done good and faithful servant". Amen.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Not realizing that our white robes ain't all that white either.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
But as Dwayne said, they wil be!
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
As a single, never married female this is an interesting conundrum. Although I am not a twentysomething anymore, I have had my share of experiences that I'm not proud of and wish that I had someone to talk to that loved me more than the sin I was committing. That being said, I don't think we should have a fish bowl of condoms available in the foyer on Sunday Mornings but an unashamed, frank discussion of this kind of thing is welcome. It is happening, as much as we cross our fingers and wish it wasn't - it just isn't seen as a big "sin" anymore. This perhaps says more about us (church) then them (twentysomethings).
Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Funny that you should mention this. I agree in large part. The really sad part is that so often we also tell others that their robes are just fine, no problem with dirt. We will take you just as you are and never even mention that God seeks to change you. Glorified social club is what so many churches have become.
Scripture teaches us that sex outside of wedlock is sin, we should teach the same.
Scripture teaches us that we are to have nothing to do with fornicators, never should we eat with them, we should teach this as well
Scripture teaches us that those engaged in sexual sin must be put out of the church and treated as unbelievers, we should be teaching this also.
Why do we think ourselves smarter than God Himself. Why do we think that we can "fix" thing and people using our own methods while spurning his advice?
How far will we slide? Mercy!
As an aside, I am finding it curious that the church would think that young folks regularly engaging in sexual activity would need advice on contraception. As if these folks aren't aware or something?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We might also follow Jesus' example to love the person that didn't perform according to scripture, and love them in such a way as to continue spiritual discussion and see them put their faith in Him. We can't all go the same way, I guess, so some of us might want to follow His example.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim,
I'm a fornicator...I guess nobody should share a meal with me. I am a forgiven fornicator...and grace is greater than all MY SIN.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Agreed! Jesus said "Go and sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery, He called the Samaritan woman on her sin as well. From John the Baptist, to Jesus and on to Paul, the message is the same. You are most certainly loved and you most certainly need to repent.
I have no issue with love and forgiveness. Enabling however is not love. Not saying that this is an easy line to walk.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You claim to be a fornicator, did you mean to place this in present tense? If so and it appears that you claim Christ as well, then you would be correct, other Christians should not share a meal with you. Love requires that we follow God's advise as we wish the very best for you.Jim,
I'm a fornicator...I guess nobody should share a meal with me. I am a forgiven fornicator...and grace is greater than all MY SIN.
Of course if you are talking past tense, then this is apples to oranges. No question at all grace is greater than all of our collective sin.1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I pray the Church will begin to "talk" about this special "gift" that God has given to mankind. About how sex is the "glue" which helps "bind" the relationship between a man and a woman into the special event of marriage. Jesus teaches that only adultry or death can break that special "bond". The "glue" does not "turn loose" after the sexual relationship ends, even if that sexual relationship was outside of marriage. We read daily of a woman, and possible her children or others who happened to be with her, who is killed by a former spouse or boyfriend (we may not like to admit it but the "glue" has a stronger effect on us men), not because she went to a movie or lunch with her "new" boyfriend, but because she was having sex with her "new" boyfriend. This "glue" has a strange effect on the male of the relationship, even after it's "over". He does not "want" her, but neither does he want anyone else to "have" her.
We cannot play games with this special "gift" that God has given us. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, and marriage as defined by God is - one man, one woman, for life! The sad thing is that the Church knows this, but we will not "man up" and preach it.
Last edited by Dwayne Petry; May 4th, 2012 at 02:17 PM.
My Prayer: Father, use me until I am used up, then call me home and may I hear "well done good and faithful servant". Amen.Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I am not advocating for fornication. I am advocating that we not do a partial list of scriptural proof texts for our position. You have certainly taken the John 4 passage and twisted it to say that he "called her out on it". That Jesus didn't condemn her doesn't mean that he approved of it, but neither did he disassociate her. As for the apostle Paul, I think I'll pattern some of my advice and encourage new believers to not change their living arrangements just because one of a couple living together has become a believer. While it's possible that Paul expected them to continue to live together without sex, he likely wasn't that naive, and that would run counter to his primary point.
We do great harm when we slap people in the face with selectively chosen scriptures. The only times Jesus did that was when he was confronting leaders in the spiritual community. If the spiritual community for which one is responsible has created the kind of environment where people don't know that Jesus wants to change them, then something is wrong. The Holy Spirit will do that, and through the love we communicate. That love demonstrated does not communicate promiscuity, but respect, dignity and the value of persons. It shows a way other than hormonally rampant and driven physical activity. That kind of love offers a community where discussions regarding sexual temptations and failures can take place without fear of branding and being cut off from those whose love, example and dialogue are most desperately needed.
Heretofore, the Church has offered scant meaningful advice or dialogue about issues of sexuality. Yet the Bible is packed with references to mankind's sexuality. The absence of conversation leaves a vacuum that implies that the subject isn't important. In fact, if a young person desperately needs to talk to someone about sex, they are forced to outside the Church. That's terrible. There are many sources outside the Church with whom someone can talk through issues of sexuality, and we are driving young people to seek those sources. That is tragic.
In the absence of conversation about sexuality, for the Church to or not to advocate the use of contraceptives doesn't make sense. As others here have proposed a better question might be "Should the Church provide offer information and dialogue about Christian sexuality, including contraception?" Until that happens, the Church's silence on the matter implies an inaccurate answer.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't believe that I twisted anything. Do you agree that Jesus "baited" her by asking about her husband? Perhaps this was just idle conversation? There is no doubt that a woman having five husbands and living with someone who she is not married to is sinful. Jesus made clear what her situation had been. Is this not "calling her on it?"
Your not suggesting that Paul's advice to the newly converted was aimed or extended to couples living in sin are you? Maybe your thinking of a different passage than I am. 1st Corinthians 7 gives a pretty good laundry list of dos and don'ts. His advice to the believer is to continue in "marriage."
No real argument here. Except for the backhand about "selectively chosen scriptures", this is not the case at all. My selection is based upon what I see as the whole counsel of scripture. No where in scripture is sexual sin condoned. Dwayne has put this in excellent perspective. People get themselves killed because of sexual sin. This is serious business, live are lost and ruined because of it, we seriously need to preach against sexual sin, and with Dwayne I have to wonder if the Church has lost it's courage. Love never enables. look around, the fact that we are even discussing advocacy for contraception is evidence of the Churches ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy in this country.
If this is the case nowadays, and I have no reason to doubt you, then yes, agreed. This is sad, I recall getting advice from my pastor and from others in my youth group about sex back in the day. In my case they were too late, not their fault since I didn't show up till I was 19 and had already had plenty of adventure. Their advice was very sound, I can still recall it even today, and I wish I had heard earlier. These scars run pretty deep.
Lets not get all wrapped up in a misguided attempt at problem solving. We are not qualified, not you, not I, not any of the geniuses who have studied long and hard. No not one. Yet we have a creator who has given us very good guidance on the subject. We need to preach and teach the scriptures, and we need to put them into practice. The accurate answer is in the scriptures and I'm not seeing much there about contraception.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If I couldn't eat with fornicators, I would have a lot more free time and much less ministry to do.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 1 LaughingHeidi Anderson - thanks for this funny post
If you are eating with fornicators, your not ministering anyway.
Come on Ryan, are you really this cavalier with scripture?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I'm confused here. We've got a lot of people whose lives don't quite match our holiness ideals - while it may make it tough to get enough people on the ballot for Church Board, we're glad to have them. They deserve a place they can be loved and hear about a different way to live.
I literally sat at a table with people three times last weekend who really, really could benefit from a frank discussion of chastity and sexual health. I guess I'm just not sure where you're going with the "don't eat with fornicators" thing.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We aren't talking about folks who don't measure up to our holiness ideals. We are talking about fornicators, we are talking about folks engaged in overt sexual sin. Paul is clear that we are to have nothing to with, nor to eat with those who call themselves a brother and yet is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, drunk or a swindler. Sure we should and must accept folks of all kinds and also regardless of the sin that has them captive. Yet once one calls him or herself a Christian, this gross sin must be gone or we must shun. Certainly there can be a conversation regarding the degree in which one could be considered to fall subject to this. But to ignore this should not be optional for the Church. I've had to do this with people that I am close to, it is very painful. Obedience isn't always easy and yet it is our acknowledgement that His ways are not our ways, He is Lord, He knows best.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
You're kidding, right?If you are eating with fornicators, your not ministering anyway.
Come on Ryan, are you really this cavalier with scripture?
I believe that Paul was inspired to write concerning those who called themselves "christian" yet live in willful sin, because God knows the damage that Satan can do to the Church by sowing the seed of hypocrisy! A Holy God calls us to be a Holy people! If the world cannot see a difference (Holy people) in the Church, what than is the attraction. The Church has lost its attraction because we are trying to be to much like the world. If we want to win the lost, we better bring our "A game", because the "world" has a pretty good idea what a Christian should look like. Before I was a Christian, women I were with on Saturday night and sang in the choir on Sunday morning, did nothing to attract me to Christ. Yes, we should "eat" with the lost, but the hypocrite in church has to bring joy to Satan because of the damage they do to Christ's Church.
I was one messed up person (some of you probably think I am still messed up) when I accepted Christ as Lord and Savior at age 32. It took the Holy Spirit 2 years to get my attitude straightened out. Shortly after accepting Christ, I had a visit from a preacher and the conversation turned to my drinking problem (just one of my many problems). He shared, and rightly so, that my body was the temple of God, and that my drinking problem was doing harm to the temple. He pointed out that my problem just might shorten my life by 5 or more years, and how that would not be pleasing to God. Good point, right! One problem for this "new Christian". The preacher was at least 100 pounds over weight. I asked him how pleased did he think God would be with him, if his "problem" (gluttony for you people in Reo Linda) shortened his life by 5 years. That is what I mean by bringing our "A game".
Sinners should be welcomed by the Church when they attend church, but sinners have no place in the Church, because by definition, they are not the Church!
My Prayer: Father, use me until I am used up, then call me home and may I hear "well done good and faithful servant". Amen.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Let me give you my answer by asking this question: Should I give young troops condoms at the beginning or the end of my lecture on Trafficing in Human Persons?
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
When we slap people in the face with scriptures that only say, "Don't do it! You can go to hell for that! I won't even eat with you! If you struggle with this issue, you can't be a believer! Contraception is wrong! Don't! Don't! Don't!" we haven't begun to scripturally address the issue. The scripture speaks to it from beginning to end, yet the Church is so self-condemned and self-conscious that we don't speak help those who live in the apex of sexual questioning and pressure.
I challenge the church to develop a theology of sexuality. If we are to be true to the scripture and honest with people, it is way over due.
Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Seems to me that Heidi said she was forgiven, but even if she wasn't I would eat with her. Well.... with my wife by my side of course! Why?
I'm not going to sit there and tell her that her actions are ok. I am going to work to make sure that someone in the church, me if necessary (with my wife next to me), develops a relationship to the point where Heidi would give me permission to speak to her heart and begin to lead her towards the saving grace of Jesus and onto discipleship.
Jesus ate with all sorts of bad characters. In fact most of what Jesus did centered around food! Which is why Pastors are so fond of taking people to lunch! It is simply an attempt to be more like Jesus!
Now regarding the larger question at hand....I don't know. I do agree with having a more open and honest discussion, but then again I must admit I am embarrassed at the thought of attempting to have the discussion. But if I really care about my church I probably need to get over it.
Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Perhaps I'll take a stab at the theology of sexuality. Could be a great part of my dissertation and certainly overdue. I am forgiven for sure and would happily eat with all of you - breaking bread together is certainly the way of Christ .
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
OK, it's an appointment. Kyle, his wife, you, Linda and I will eat together at General Assembly. I'm pretty sure Jim and his wife would be glad to be there, too. Even better, why don't we take communion together Sunday morning before assembly begins? This could be huge!
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Simply put -
No. The church should advocate marriage for singles. - We need more babies!
Wow this Catholic culture I live in (Philippines) is really wearing off on me.. but that's a pretty good position for the church. However the problem here in the Philippines is that Catholic Church is controlling sex ed even the public school arena and are totally against educating the masses on birth control. Seems the Church is really into keeping the masses impoverished and thus under control. (that maybe unfair slam on the Catholic leadership - but that is essentially what is happening.)
its a different story in the affluent west. The singles in the US church know all about birth control from the secular society we live. The Church needs to not promote promiscuity, but rather God's plan of marriage and sexuality. The church needs to also show how destructive sexual sin is and the consequences of bringing and unplanned child to life - whether that choice is to carry the child to term and raise the child in loving fashion in or outside of marriage, or lovingly surrender to adoption, or to abort the baby (wrong choice). These are all consequences (and there are more of course) As one poster put it: this is serious business the church needs to be highly involved in teaching about Christian Sexuality (even for long married) ...but methods of birth control and condoning their use is not one. IMHO.
"And as we pass the collection plate, please give as if the person next to you was watching."
-Rev. LovejoyPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If you seek a person to share a lunch with at the GA, I'll be there.Jim,
I'm a fornicator...I guess nobody should share a meal with me. I am a forgiven fornicator...and grace is greater than all MY SIN.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In my view, we need healthy marriages first, and the babies second. I'm not the type that would advocate a marriage to legalize sex, before we make sure they have gone through some serious marriage counselling.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
