Idiot!
Articles like this make me mad. Jon’s already sounded off on this, but once I read it… well, here I am. Mom, you know how I get sometimes. You might not enjoy reading this one. I apologize for the abusive use of caps lock, bold and itlaic print.
It’s a man without a penis giving sex advice, basically.
It makes me want to flip out and kill people, in a Christ’s-love-be-with you sort of way. His intentions are good maybe, but sadly… he has no [unforgivable swear + ing] clue. Seriously, no [unforgivable swear + ing] clue. He makes four points.
1) First, he writes about being made in Gods image and not having sex with prostitutes. Great—God’s standard is very clear here. When he writes, “Are you bearing well the image and name of a holy God by the way you conduct your relationships with the opposite sex?”, I think I understand and agree with him. However, in light of the rest of the essay, he’s really hinting that Godly people aren’t sexual. I’m pretty sure gender and sex are inherently part of our image bearing. Idiot.
2) Next, he goes on about protecting (not defrauding, is the term he likes) our sisters in Christ. He’s really big on the ‘sisters’ thing. This is his point: “…there should be no difference in standards of physical intimacy between the single man's conduct with a single woman and my standards as an already married man.” In general, yes! I have no business fooling around with women. But that is NOT because our sexuality is dangerous and wrong but because the level of commitment and emotional intimacy make such physical interaction inappropriate. Idiot! Commitment, emotional and physical intimacy all work together—if any of the three is significantly less than the other you have a disturbed relationship and something will give. (Now that I’m an expert!) Why are long-distance relationships so hard? Not because you can’t feel each other up whenever you want—but because you hit a wall in communication. You can’t see how they’re feeling, you can’t hold their hand when you say you’re sorry or hear each other laugh of cry. KILLING YOUR SEXUALITY IS NOT HOLINESS! Gosh.
3) We need to guard our hearts, minds, and bodies for marriage. OK, how? “If you have failed or are failing in this area, then remember your calling and resolve to stop now and prepare yourself for marriage.” When has resolving to stop now ever worked as and anti-sin strategy? Basically he’s telling men to try harder and not trust the grace of Jesus. In the masturbating world, we call this the “white knuckle” approach. It doesn’t work. Freedom in Christ be damned.
4) Last, the idiot talks of the “Marriage Bank”. It doesn’t open until you’re married, but men can make deposits early by being holy. Women make withdrawals. What the hell? And why is the guy the only one making deposits and the woman the only one making withdrawals? Don’t men trust and depend on their wives too? Where does the woman’s holiness go? The “Marriage Mayonaise Jar”? Under the “Marriage Mattress”? Gah!
I’ve lost a lot of respect for Focus on the Family for posting this kind of crap, even though it comes from a book edited by John Piper (et al). Screw diversity of thought. Some people are idiots. Also, what is going on with the picture at the top of the page? Talk about mixed signals!
Am I giving into a spirit of criticism? Damn right I am. I am sick and tired of Christian “men” who take this no-balls approach to life. “Men” who don’t love or trust Jesus enough to deal with their past and equate the Way with keeping your head down (think about it…). Take this sentence, for example: “Do you think it would be acceptable or unacceptable for me to have a meal with a woman not my wife and engage in extended conversation about each other's lives (likes/dislikes/struggles/pasts)?” The “correct” answer is no, even if you’re not married.
Don’t talk to girls. Don’t think about girls. Don’t spend time with girls. And for God’s sake don’t touch girls! This is your holiness, for I am Matt Schmucker and my yoke is not at all easy and my burden is crushing, crushing, crushing men into the ground. Idiot.
Good thing freedom in Christ is real instead of this idiot schmuck’s theology. Better resources include Jesus, LFL and Stephen Foster’s chapter on “Sexuality and Singleness” in his book Money, Sex and Power.
It’s a man without a penis giving sex advice, basically.
It makes me want to flip out and kill people, in a Christ’s-love-be-with you sort of way. His intentions are good maybe, but sadly… he has no [unforgivable swear + ing] clue. Seriously, no [unforgivable swear + ing] clue. He makes four points.
1) First, he writes about being made in Gods image and not having sex with prostitutes. Great—God’s standard is very clear here. When he writes, “Are you bearing well the image and name of a holy God by the way you conduct your relationships with the opposite sex?”, I think I understand and agree with him. However, in light of the rest of the essay, he’s really hinting that Godly people aren’t sexual. I’m pretty sure gender and sex are inherently part of our image bearing. Idiot.
2) Next, he goes on about protecting (not defrauding, is the term he likes) our sisters in Christ. He’s really big on the ‘sisters’ thing. This is his point: “…there should be no difference in standards of physical intimacy between the single man's conduct with a single woman and my standards as an already married man.” In general, yes! I have no business fooling around with women. But that is NOT because our sexuality is dangerous and wrong but because the level of commitment and emotional intimacy make such physical interaction inappropriate. Idiot! Commitment, emotional and physical intimacy all work together—if any of the three is significantly less than the other you have a disturbed relationship and something will give. (Now that I’m an expert!) Why are long-distance relationships so hard? Not because you can’t feel each other up whenever you want—but because you hit a wall in communication. You can’t see how they’re feeling, you can’t hold their hand when you say you’re sorry or hear each other laugh of cry. KILLING YOUR SEXUALITY IS NOT HOLINESS! Gosh.
3) We need to guard our hearts, minds, and bodies for marriage. OK, how? “If you have failed or are failing in this area, then remember your calling and resolve to stop now and prepare yourself for marriage.” When has resolving to stop now ever worked as and anti-sin strategy? Basically he’s telling men to try harder and not trust the grace of Jesus. In the masturbating world, we call this the “white knuckle” approach. It doesn’t work. Freedom in Christ be damned.
4) Last, the idiot talks of the “Marriage Bank”. It doesn’t open until you’re married, but men can make deposits early by being holy. Women make withdrawals. What the hell? And why is the guy the only one making deposits and the woman the only one making withdrawals? Don’t men trust and depend on their wives too? Where does the woman’s holiness go? The “Marriage Mayonaise Jar”? Under the “Marriage Mattress”? Gah!
I’ve lost a lot of respect for Focus on the Family for posting this kind of crap, even though it comes from a book edited by John Piper (et al). Screw diversity of thought. Some people are idiots. Also, what is going on with the picture at the top of the page? Talk about mixed signals!
Am I giving into a spirit of criticism? Damn right I am. I am sick and tired of Christian “men” who take this no-balls approach to life. “Men” who don’t love or trust Jesus enough to deal with their past and equate the Way with keeping your head down (think about it…). Take this sentence, for example: “Do you think it would be acceptable or unacceptable for me to have a meal with a woman not my wife and engage in extended conversation about each other's lives (likes/dislikes/struggles/pasts)?” The “correct” answer is no, even if you’re not married.
Don’t talk to girls. Don’t think about girls. Don’t spend time with girls. And for God’s sake don’t touch girls! This is your holiness, for I am Matt Schmucker and my yoke is not at all easy and my burden is crushing, crushing, crushing men into the ground. Idiot.
Good thing freedom in Christ is real instead of this idiot schmuck’s theology. Better resources include Jesus, LFL and Stephen Foster’s chapter on “Sexuality and Singleness” in his book Money, Sex and Power.
posted by nach at 12:23 PM
10 Comments:
You write that the author of that piece says that "our sexuality is dangerous and wrong." I don't see that. It looks instead like the author so highly values sexuality that we men should deal soberly and wisely with it. It's a fire, as Scripture says, and we need to deal carefully with it.
It seems that this article has touched a nerve with you, as demonstrated by your angry and vulgar words. If you're not a Christian, that's fine as I shouldn't require godliness from someone who's not committed to God. But if you're a Christian, then your anger and harshness are revealing something in your heart that you really should evaluate.
Dad here. Holy crap! Touched a nerve?! I guess. Jesus was never angree or harsh? What version of the gospels does "anonymous" read? Take a deep breath and repeat after me, "I will not condemn or judge idiots."
Of course Jesus was at times both angry and quite harsh.
I'll tell ya, that "anger" in your heart is very well justified. We should get very angry at the broken world we live in and stand up and fight against heresy and misinterpretations of scripture. Preach on, brother.
By the way, that anonymous thing is too convenient.
You’re right in that the article is maddening. To me, the most aggravating point is that the author never cares to clarify how one is to meet and get to know his future wife without those “talks over coffee.” You know, the ones where people actually get to know each other so as not to marry a complete stranger. I guess that means that premarital counseling is out of the question, as you would have to share your likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, etc. What?! Schmucker makes bold claims then never really goes into detail. Frustrating? Why yes! Additionally, the man loses credibility in making these statements without sharing his personal experience or his struggles. We must assume that he is either a) superhuman or b) did not follow the same commands yet somehow still managed to enter a sacred marriage covenant and maintain mutual commitment with his wife for these past 16 years, likely in a Christ-honoring relationship. Where is his story of failure, conviction, forgiveness, growth? Now that he’s married and long past his single years, where does he get off writing such articles without being at all vulnerable?
At the same time, should we not give him any benefit of the doubt? He has obviously worked with reputable, respectable people who are admired for their wisdom. Should we doubt that he is speaking from experience or out of some other form of God-given wisdom? Can we seriously consider his points and take them for what they’re worth even if they are fallible and, at least in our young adult singleness, seen as impractical? I’m just wondering if there is any hope for a middle ground, but then again, maybe that’s just the peacemaker in me coming out.
This seems to highlight something that kinda bugs me:
My wife and I struggled with our physical relationship in the months leading up to our marriage. We had both struggled with these issues in the past, but neither one of us had ever had sex. We just had a healthy sense of sexuality that tended to ricochet around before we found our wife/husband. Neither of us wanted to "give" that sexuality to another person, but at the same time we didn't want to kill it either.
Anyways.... the fact that we were messing around before marriage came to my sister's attention, and that brought the house down on us. To be honest, I love my sister but I really disliked her during that time. It was *incredibly* easy for her to sit on the outside and tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. She even went so far as to have some dear friends who had had sex before they were married talk to us directly.
Now, here's where I began to have problems with what advice was given me. All of the advice I got from this incredible couple (whom I love dearly) was advice from the outside in and retrospective.
Needless to say, the advice seemed a bit.... out of touch with what we were going through. It also seemed to be thought up from a position of regret. The steps they advocated would have meant our emotional distancing from each other -- a step we did not want to take right before our marriage.
You can make all the "reasonable" arguments you want about what should and shouldn't be done in certain situations. In the end, logic based from a background of shame and regret coupled with an outside-in perspective (my friends had been married for years) did not make for a convicing argument nor "meaningful" guidance.
Now, I'm not trying to use this argument as a defence of us not throwing on the brakes and returning to a Victorian standard of dating, but I am saying that this article feels the same as the advice we got -- "Stop because you'll regret it."
The only time that argument works is when you use it to help a person resist falling back into something they want to get out of.
But the "situation" this advice seems to be trying to "pull" us out of is the modern view of people as sexual/emotional people who are deeply engaged with one another's lives. The opposing "world" it sets up is one where people do not deeply interact before marriage, but suddenly "turn on" after the wedding vows are spoken. I have no idea what android they studied when they came up with this theory, but I don't know any person where I'm from that adheres to this worldview.
Alright, enough rambling.
I agree with your perspective Nathan. Thrilled to see you wrestle with it all. Hang in there.
An adendum to the post two before this one: Just to let you know... My wife and I did *not* have sex before we were married, but... take my sister's worrying as a sign of that it was not wholly good.
Huh, people do read this. I keep forgetting that. Thanks for your thoughts.
one word:
hell yeah.
hm. guess that's two words. but you said it man. that article was well intentioned, but missed the mark by about a metric mile. our desires are terrible, and we must do everything in our own power to keep them under control. otherwise all hell's gonna break loose.
i know i haven't kept up with you lately, but i'm gonna start reading more of your blogs. keep up the great work, mate.
Отправить комментарий
<< Home