“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

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?

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.

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.

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.”

You know, candid. *wink* *wink*

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

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.

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