C.J. Mahaney Talks About Sex…
June 13, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
In light of the recent discussions here, I thought it was interesting when a reader sent me the link to C.J. Mahaney’s recent presentation entitled Marriage Matters: The Gift of Marital Intimacy. I was curious to hear the sort of sex advice the head of Sovereign Grace Ministries would give to married couples.
The talk begins with C.J. reading from a letter sent to him by an attendee of a conference he and Carolyn had taught. The parts of the letter C.J. reads praise the teaching C.J. gave, calling it revolutionary. The letter-writer shares that his wife had previously had a real aversion to sex, “since their wedding night.” But after hearing C.J.’s and Carolyn’s presentation, things had improved so much for them that it was like they were on their honeymoon again.
Then C.J. goes on to give a rather lengthy and somewhat confusing introduction to the idea that Song of Songs is God’s sex manual (my words, not actually C.J.’s, but it’s nonetheless clear that C.J. views Song of Songs as some sort of technical guide to marital intimacy). He says that this book of the Bible is not allegorical. Rather, it is the story of one married couple’s sexual adventures. He then cautions that Song of Songs is one of the most difficult books of the Bible to understand, right up there with the book of Revelation, and that we should not attempt to comprehend Song of Songs without the help of experts. Also, because of the “Near East” language, we might be put off by some of the turns of phrase and probably won’t find them particularly sensual.
I admit that I have sat through little direct instruction about this book of the Bible. I haven’t spent much time studying it privately, either. But in a general way, I was always under the impression that it was a collection of love poetry, most of which was written by King Solomon. Since Solomon was the consumate Old Testament ladies’ man, with hundreds of wives and even more concubines, it would seem incorrect to assume that Song of Songs relates specifically to just one “married couple.”
C.J. then continues by highlighting a few verses from Song of Songs and asserting that we can use them to help us improve our sex lives. For instance, C.J. claims that Song of Songs would instruct us to pay more attention to kissing and carressing.
As usual, C.J. demonstrates a fondness for quoting other authors. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this entire presentation was C.J.’s emphasis on a line from Ed Wheat:
If you do what comes naturally in love-making, almost every time, you will be wrong.
In the end, I couldn’t understand what the letter-writer C.J. quoted in his introduction had found so revolutionary about this teaching. Although there is nothing wrong with reminding husbands and wives to communicate with one another about their likes and dislikes, and to make more effort to please one another, it seemed to me like this whole presentation would just serve to convince C.J.’s audience that here was yet another area of their lives – sex – which had to be approached with laborious efforts.
After all, like so many other things in SGMville, C.J.’s audience was reminded once again that if they just do what comes naturally, they’re probably doing it wrong.
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
I also have to say that I found the handout, with its hot 70s font and rainbow logo, sort of giggle-worthy. :D
Interesting. I wonder if the pastors consider these blogs when they plan out their messages. Does anyone find it curious that as one poster mentioned a desire to picket FFX this summer that the series of messages being brought to the church right now are on forgiveness? Is it preparing the hearts of the congregation to forgive their leaders when certain issues come to light? These poor, helpless, unaware members have no idea what they are being set up for. Is it a set-up? With all that is coming into light with these blogs, it sure feels like it to me. just sayin.
I’m not a prude or anything, but I find this “presentation” at church (!) embarassing. I could never comfortably listen to this kind of thing in church or from my pastor! I’m not sure “the church” needs help with this, but if we did, I would think it more appropriate to talk to someone other than our pastor about our sex life. This crosses some sort of personal boundaries for me. Don’t you think? It
s going just a little to far in my book to do something like this from the pulpit. But that’s just my opinion. I think there are far more important things to teach on – like feeding the hungry, reaching the lost, rescuing orphans, loving your neighbor, preaching the gospel to the pershing BILLIONS, missions to the 10/40 window… you know, more pressing eternal things like that.
Another thing I noticed about this teaching – give it a listen if you haven’t already – is how CJ primes the audience to uncritically accept everything he says.
In the beginning of this talk, he sets up a direct connection between “being served” by this teaching through humble acceptance of it…and receiving God’s grace because the listener was humble enough to accept this teaching. It’s quite the little dance of words, but in the end, the message is clear: God wants to use this teaching to give you grace, but only if you are humble and accept what is being taught.
anon,
I thought the exact same thing! Like you, I would not consider myself a prude in any way. But I do think there’s something super-creepy about being instructed on such intimate matters in a church setting. Guy and I listened to the sound file together the other night, and at points we were cringing at hearing CJ’s voice as he uttered words like “carressing” and “love-making.”
I actually think, though, that given SGM’s emphasis over the past couple of decades on choosing one’s spouse based upon “godly character” rather than emotion and natural attraction has probably set up an entire generation of couples to have some major issues with their physical intimacy. After re-reading Josh Harris’ Boy Meets Girl, I was struck by how he managed to make something fun, sweet, lighthearted, and exciting – romance, and finding a mate – into something frought with danger, something heavy and serious and difficult.
And if a couple has to put so much thought and effort into getting together – where the decision to finally “unguard” their hearts is this big potentially sin-laden undertaking – is it any wonder that the post-wedding sexual relationship might be difficult, too?
My wife and I attended an SGM married couples’ retreat in Gatlinburg, TN in 2002. Pretty much the same stuff he talked about there, from the look of it. I’ll have to dig up my notes (if I can find them).
The weirdest thing about the whole weekend was that we guys were supposed to embrace Solomon’s example and write a poem about C.J. (which is REALLY odd, considering the reason for the poetry in the book!) – the winning poem (based on votes by CJ, Brent Detwiler, and a few other pastors/leaders who were there) won a free getaway/vacation, IIRC. Lots of bald jokes in the poems…
I was also really bewildered by the idea that anyone would actually get some sort of sexual inspiration out of Song of Songs.
I mean, I get that Song of Songs shows us that the Bible clearly has nothing against human sexuality…and that God wants us to view the marital relationship as something delightful. But in terms of specific guidance – well, CJ lost me there. Sure, there is a line within Song of Songs that references a “mouth like honey.” But do we then go on to draw specific inferences from that passage to what we do in the bedroom?
And how is that “revolutionary” (as CJ’s supposed letter-writer said), anyway? Who but the most ignorant of guys (or gals) needs this sort of reminder, that “kissing should be long and deep,” as I think CJ put it at one point?
(And sorry…but I’m literally feeling my stomach turn as I relive the sound of CJ’s voice saying that line. Ugh!)
I guess I’m more than a little boggled by the seeming assumption that we need to read about “legs like the cedars of Lebanon” and look at that as some sort of biblical guideline.
Travis,
Um…a poem about CJ?
What?
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice in Wonderland would say… :spin
sick and tired,
From everything I’ve learned about SGM, the leaders do nothing by accident. It’s all very “intentional” – that’s one of CJ’s favorite words and guiding principles for everything they do.
I’m reminded of how CJ went to the Knoxville church a couple of summers ago and trotted out his Happiest Place On Earth sermon. In his intro, he assured his audience that he was not preaching this “Submit to and obey your pastors!” sermon because of anything the pastors had told him or anything that might be going on in the Knoxville church. And yet right around that time, a new membership covenant document had been introduced. Members were being commanded to sign this document, and it was a known fact that many weren’t exactly happy about that.
So was it a coincidence that CJ brought his “Submit And Obey” message to that congregation? Would CJ really have been that much in the dark about what was going on in Knoxville? Back then, I knew all about the membership covenant uproar, and I just run this site. Wouldn’t it be highly unlikely that the leader of the SGM organization wouldn’t have been aware of what was going on in Knoxville, if I as a mere blog moderator knew about it?
I just read Lucy’s blog — wow — thank you, Lucy. What a crazy coincidence that Joe happened to be in THAT particular church. God has an interesting sense of drama — but beyond that, Lucy, — “for such a time as this.”
And re: CJ’s sermon about the Song of Solomon — I no longer have any interest in anything that Ceej has to say about anything — unless it’s a statement of resignation, accompanied by a sincere apology and restoration/reconciliation/remuneration for those on the receiving end of his faulty practices. The last time I downloaded one of his sermons to listen to, I couldn’t get past the first two minutes, so I’m gonna pass on this one. The last thing I want to hear in my bedroom is CJ’s voice advising me how to kiss.
Kris — “Doctrine of Pastor” — oh, YEAH!!
Kris darlin’, my bewildered sister….
Let me connect the dots for you. You are correct that everything is intentional.
First of all, Mark Driscoll is one of the big crowd drawers of the young Calvinista crowd. (and yes, I am a die hard Calvinist). He is crass and crude and vulgar, but he is a big seller.
Mahaney and Piper are allegedly helping to oversee him a bit. Now he needs some imput, so that is a good thing. Here is a quote from Tim Challies blog:
http://www.challies.com/articles/driscoll-piper-amp-mahaney
“Last Sunday, at Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll preached a sermon on the Regulative Principle. For a few minutes, just at the end of the sermon, he discussed some “behind-the-scenes” time he has spent with both C.J. Mahaney and John Piper. In this brief audio excerpt, posted below, he explains to his congregation some of the ways he has failed to serve them and how he hopes to grow in and by God’s grace. This is in light of some private brotherly correction and feedback he received from John Piper and C.J. Mahaney at the recent Resurgence conference.
When I hear things like this, I am filled with gratitude for this incredible, unique body called the church. I love to see Christians serving, challenging, exhorting and blessing other Christians in this way. I thank God for Piper and Mahaney and their ministry to Mark Driscoll and, through him, to the church at large. Listen and be encouraged.”
Now, this is from 2008, but I’ve heard that they continue to oversee and relate even today; don’t feel like searching for more recent links. And let me go on record as saying that Piper is IMO one of the best teacher/preachers, ever, and I do not want to criticize the man’s teaching ministry. Just putting out public facts here.
OK, now we go to MacArthurs critique of Driscoll entitled the Rape of Solomons song. Here is a blog with links to all three of John MacArthurs essays on how Driscoll botched up his exegesis.
I have to warn you that back when I read all this, I folled the links to the actual transcript of Driscoll’s teachings. I wish I had not. MacArthur was deeply troubled and felt it necessary to link them to issue his warning, as prurient as they are. The Driscoll sermons have things like giving yourself to your husband for anal sex (medically abominable, as the anus is not designed for the penetrating force of the male part and can tear), and how certain poetic verses in S of S really mean oral sex, like the fruit is sweet to my taste means his semen type thing. I am sorry to be graphic, but you want to figure this out so I’m putting the facts out.
http://defendingcontending.com/2009/04/17/john-macarthur-on-mark-driscoll-part-2/
A long quote:
“When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses.
Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six-page letter I sent him:
[Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . . It’s vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness.
Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern.
Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings.
It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.
Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough.
Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog.
To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven’t publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.”
****
end lengthy quote. But go back and read the last paragraph right above this to help connect the dots.
Ok, third fact is that more recently for whatever the reason, in 2010-2011 this whole subject was on Reformed sites again. I don’t follow Driscoll and supposedly he toned down a bit in 2009, but perhaps was going back to his old vulgar self? I saw on concerned Reformed sites, disgusting quotes from Driscoll sermons given to audiences with teens and singles in them, inappropriate and immoral talk for public sermons, but I don’t know the dates so I am hesitant to repeat what I wrote. Too prurient anyway.
OK, so here we have John MacArthur asking why Piper and Mahaney are not publically refuting this. We just had the Gospel Coalition in Chicago in April with SGM on the roster (CJ, Harris, Harvey) along with a big list of Reformed Big Dogs.
So, is CJ under pressure? You betcha. Are the blogs exposing this, all over the place? Of course. He has to be under pressure. He has to take sides with MacArthur about Song of Solomon-a more classic Reformed position- or he has to side with Driscoll and the verse by verse literal sexual meaning.
Is CJ any sort of deep theologian? No, a thousand times no. Is Piper? Yes, very much so. Intriguing situation all around.
So, is CJ doing what it takes to not rock the cash cow? or, does he really believe what he is teaching? Do we know his inner heart? No. But if you want to be Sherlock Holmes and make some educated guesses, the facts are all there if you follow the links I posted. Draw your own conclusions.
Another blog post, quoting Piper ( 09):
http://5ptsalt.com/2009/05/15/piper-addresses-mark-driscollmacarthur-issue-at-basics-conference/
“Mark has stuck his foot in his mouth quite a few times….I would encourage no one to become coarse, filthy, trashy…”
“With a certain young crowd, it’s hip, cool…I don’t think you’re mouth needs to be dirty to relate to twenty-somethings in Seattle.”
“The difference between John MacArthur and I at this point is I am not drawing the line that John has drawn from the imperfections of Mark’s ministry to his unfitness of his ministry. I’m not going there at this point. I’m going to Mark. I’m getting in his face now…”I’m old enough to be his dad, he knows that, and I’m in his face, pleading with him…and saying ‘You have incredible influence’…and that’s part of the problem….”
— John Piper
So, we did have some confrontation from Piper. And now we have CJ siding with Driscoll’s theology of sex and Song of Solomon. He apparently rejected MacArthur’s exegesis. So take your pick- classic orthodoxy, or CJ/Driscoll.
It’ll be interesting to see if CJ goes farther to command wives to give hubby blow jobs “in accordance with scripture”.
Excuse me now as I go throw up.
I wanted to add this MacArthur quote:
http://defendingcontending.com/2009/04/17/john-macarthur-on-mark-driscoll-part-2/
It’s frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable.
I am DEEPLY WEIRDED OUT by men being assigned to write a poem about another man. “Hey, fellas. Embrace Solomon’s example and pen a poem about another man”???
CJ’s groovy little handout says we’re supposed to ask our spouse: “Is there anything I do that doesn’t arouse you?”
Yes! Writing love poems to men, okay??
(Sweet baby Jesus in the manger, help us all.)
I hope Travis comes back and explains a bit more about the poetry writing contest. But in the meantime, it occurs to me that it makes sense that the poetry exercise happened back in 2002, which was still a time when the average person wouldn’t have discussed this stuff on the internet.
I’m guessing the SGM boys wouldn’t try that sort of “joke” nowadays. Even if it was more of a “you had to be there” kind of moment, it still sounds utterly bizarre. But back in 2002, they could count on the old “What happens
in Vegasin church stays in church.”Ahhh yes, the CJ’s better in the bedroom talks.
*
*
No matter how many kids you have, regardless of you and your spouse’s level of comfort and Joy, you’ve been doing it wrong. The good news is that God cares about every move, every caress, and every encounter. God has found favor with how CJ and Caroline go about their bedroom antics. But wait, there’s more!
*
*
CJ is willing to share with you his take on Driscoll’s controversial teachings in this the matter, while simultaneously pointing out his superiority, and your inferiority. It is the ecclesiastical equivalent of CJ having the most biblical prowess. It was only a matter of time before things got to this subject. Just like the old bald men with Corvettes and Porches’, this is CJ’s way of overcompensating for his shortcomings.
*
*
It is more importantly another example of CJ’s pride and arrogance. It stems from the same pride and arrogance that causes him to NEED to, and HAVE to be the best of everything. Where he does not, there is a biblical reason why it is ok, or Gods preference that CJ would be different. Therefore, CJ in the eyes of his God, always has to be #1. Some examples;
*
– CJ is the best sinner, let’s face it, to be able to proclaim the worst sinner status in the context of SGM, one would be the most qualified as an apostle. This makes him the best sinner. A lousy distinction if you ask me, but there it is.
*
– CJ’s is a leader’s leader. It is not sufficient for Charles to be one of many pastors who all appear the same in the eyes of God. In the world of CJ there is always the ability to get more God, and more grace in this life, as well as more heaven in the next. Constant change is here not because we have a bunch of ding dongs trying to figure things out, but because God is always pouring out cutting edge teachings to the man. PLEASE!
*
– SGM is the churches church, the beacon of faithfulness. SGM started as counter culture to the established churches, and continues this trend by being counter culture to Christianity. For all things of the Kingdom, CJ has his own spin on things. There is always AT LEAST ONE facet to every scripture and verse where CJ has it more right.
*
– SGM members are the best in the industry! Funny as they treat us as some of the dumbest undeserving stumps that have ever approached a sanctuary, but in doing so, get the best chance to demonstrate their leadership abilities. (I would imagine it would be more of a “joy” to lead a bunch of lemmings of a cliff, than to lead well trained unique soldiers into battle. SGM proves with their inward focus that they themselves do not trust God, or SGM equipping enough to let anyone out of the SGM world. I believe the term is “Failure to launch.” If they can not equip you as Christ equipped his disciples, than what is SGM really worth to the kingdom?)
*
– SGM just can’t rest on being right. Being that they stand in the very stead of God, you are either for them, or against them. Disagree, and you are without basis, education, calling, or perhaps salvation. This is the elementary school
equivalent of saying, I don’t care that you have that; I never wanted it, pttttttthh!
*
*
I could go with examples ad nauseam, but I won’t. CJ’s teaching on this is a dung heap. It was not sufficient for him to catch some extra spotlight off of Driscoll rantings on this subject, he had to be the performance and prowess master. (Extra credit question, what worldwide international best seller was CJ’s Rescuing Ambition based on?)
*
I want no part of a God who, rather than see me as righteous through the sacrifice of his son, sits at the foot of my bed evaluating every move looking to be more glorified. I am also glad that I did not stick around for the following titles that are sure to be forthcoming from the man.
*
*
– Don’t Waste Your Bowel Movements.
*
– Not Even a Hint 2 – Brushing, Flossing, and other Hygiene Tips for the Glory of God.
– Why Boca Raton? – How the context of retirement can become an SGM church planting opportunity.
*
– Pharisees, Fundamentalism, and First Aid – a Spiritual Camping Reference for honoring God while pitching a tent. Includes excerpts from Biblical Romance.
*
*
Now in the hopes of leaving you with some sense of credibility –
*
(By John MacArthur)
*
*
I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song’s message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning.
*
*
Solomon’s Song is, as I’ve said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter’s own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text.
*
*
However, those who pretend to know the meanings of poetic symbols that are not clearly identifiable from the text itself commit the very same error. Their speculation is likewise a way of exalting their own imaginations to a higher level of authority than the plain sense of the text.
I was at that same conference in Gatlinburg, and I don’t remember the poem thing, but I do remember us being encouraged that night to go to our hotel rooms and “practice” the things that CJ was teaching about. I also remember being very uncomfortable the whole time. My husband on the other hand thought it was the greatest thing for our marriage, maybe because of Carolyn’s teaching during the breakout session with the women. Carolyn taught that there is no valid reason to abstain from sexual relations with your husband except in the case of “prayer” citing I Cor. 7:5. She said it doesn’t matter how you feel (headache, flu, exhaustion, etc.), you give up your rights to your body when you marry. To “deprive” seems like a very strong word to me and also seems to imply an intention to hurt (emotionally). I think some translations actually use the word “defraud”. I’ve thought a lot about this, because I don’t really see refraining for a night or even a couple of nights as “depriving” someone; and I don’t feel guilty saying “no” when I’m sick. However, I must admit, Carolyn’s words are always, always in my head at those times, and it drives me crazy.
Something else about CJ’s presentation that sort of nagged at me was all his talk about how you didn’t want to try to understand Song of Songs without “expert” help. And yet it’s supposed to be some sort of sex manual? But it’s so complicated, right up there with the book of Revelation?
It seems to me that this is yet another way to make members feel powerless to read and understand the Bible for themselves. Here you have this book – Song of Songs – being trumpeted as some “revolutionary” guide for married couples, which of course creates a need for the audience to learn about it. But then in the next breath the audience is told not to try and figure it out for themselves, without the help of “experts.”
Yet what CJ eventually ends up teaching out of Song of Songs certainly doesn’t seem that profound or earth-shattering. A quick perusal of a couple of women’s magazines like Redbook or Ladies Home Journal at the supermarket checkout would touch on the importance of “kissing and carressing.” Telling couples to talk about this stuff among themselves – well, that principle isn’t even IN Song of Songs.
And it all seems so obvious anyway. If this is all we need to get out of Song of Songs, then why would we need “expert” help in understanding it?
I will say it another way, CJ’s break from accepted thought is nothing more than an attempt to gain more spotlight, and the public perception of more God and gratification. It is locker room bragging from the pulpit. It is CJ creating God in his own image, a God that is for CJ’s compulsive perversions.
Combine this with all his teachings on modesty, and you have a sex addict, a perv, that is in need of amazing ritual to consummate his relevance. (Look it up kids, classic deviant sexual behavior.)
It is no wonder why they, SGM, is so empathetic towards molesters. CJ turns Caroline into a virgin, than ravages her. Same behavior, “biblical” context.
Just sick garbage if you ask me. There is really noting interesting about it, it is just sad and pathetic. The notion that he is a role model, even worse.
Travis,
I had a chance to see the teaching materials before hand, and chose not to attend. It was the poem to CJ that tipped the scales for me.
Buzzing Bee,
“And I don’t feel guilty saying “no” when I’m sick.”
I would surmise that CJ would be asking Carolyn for “service” when she is sick.
How is that not selfish of him?
No, “Can I get you something?”
No, “How can I help you?”
No, “Just rest, and I will take the day off?”
How can Carolyn be at her “Biblical” best when she is sick????
SGM women, seems your role is more of a service provider than anything else, can’t even have a sick day without request.
I’m done :barf:
Now I ain’t a book lernt like he is, but I wrote ol’ CJ one a them there fancy haikus:
CJ, my “brother”
You creep us out, your vanity
Why do none help you?
REE-voe-LOU-shun-airy? Do say, now!
Former SG Pastor
Haven’t read all the comments (yet) but I wanted to put in a quick word.
From what I understand, Jews were not permitted to read the Song of Solomon before the age of 30.
In the original language, it’s quite a steamy book. The poetry is red-hot.
It is certainly NOT an allegory between God and Israel (as some scholars teach).
Buzzing Bee,
I meant to also say that nor should anyone feel guilty for putting their
health first. It is not selfish to want to care for what has been called their
“temple” by resting and not taking on unnecessary activity. I would submit that it is also caring for the other by not putting them at risk of getting sick as well. Seems to me that this level of care and concern is more in line with Christ teachings of putting others first than CJ’s take which really contradicts Christ.
Remnant –
Their are lots of views on it, honestly I personally have no opinion on the book.
For me its inclusion is a curious as the book of Numbers. I take issue with how CJ uses it for his own purposes, promotion, and personal justifications.
There are many books and teachings that SGM ignores and overlooks, are they beyond Revelations in complexity? To jump on this bandwagon was an exercise in marketing and CJ’s narcissism. I really hope this thread does not get into what the book is or is not, but continues to focus on how SGM’s methodology and practices are revealed in CJ’s interpretation and useage.
Specifically more views and thoughts on Kris’s observation of CJ claiming the subject to be one of experts and difficulty, (and then moving forward with little to no research partners, or formal education. Another point of arrogance for CJ),
and how “This is yet another way to make members feel powerless to read and understand the Bible for themselves.”
Nickname — I’m sorry, I don’t know how I missed your comment up there. Thank you for saying that.
Unassimilated:
Specifically more views and thoughts on Kris’s observation of CJ claiming the subject to be one of experts and difficulty, (and then moving forward with little to no research partners, or formal education. Another point of arrogance for CJ), and how “This is yet another way to make members feel powerless to read and understand the Bible for themselves.”
You’re right. That’s the point. :word
I think CJ is a ridiculous little twerp. I don’t even think he’s a Terp, is he? What’s his education level again? He makes mockery of true scholars of the Word.
@ Lucy in #13 — :clap
@ Kris in #17 — :word
Kris, you summed it up rather well with the following statement:
“After all, like so many other things in SGMville, C.J.’s audience was reminded once again that if they just do what comes naturally, they’re probably doing it wrong.”
Unassimilated,
To this portion of your comment in #24, I says a hearty Amen !!!!
“I really hope this thread does not get into what the book is or is not, but continues to focus on how SGM’s methodology and practices are revealed in CJ’s interpretation and useage.
Specifically more views and thoughts on Kris’s observation of CJ claiming the subject to be one of experts and difficulty, (and then moving forward with little to no research partners, or formal education. Another point of arrogance for CJ),and how ‘This is yet another way to make members feel powerless to read and understand the Bible for themselves.'”
I think anyone who has spent much time thinking about SGM’s various teachings relating to romance and sexuality would start to think that the men who run the organization have some issues.
First, you have the teachings on modesty, where the burden for men’s purity of thought is placed upon women and their clothing choices. Then there are the teachings that men should advise their wives and daughters about their wardrobes, even going so far as to inspect their daughters’ outfits.
Then there’s the idea that men and women are to “guard their hearts,” interacting with one another ONLY as brothers and sisters until the fateful moment when a man decides he’s ready for marriage and wants to explore the idea of romance with a specific woman. Both men and women are encouraged to ignore their feelings in this process – distrust their hearts – and instead look at more (supposedly) objective qualities first, like the person’s “godly character.”
Then there’s the business of refraining from kissing until the wedding. Although Josh Harris does include a disclaimer about how one person’s boundaries don’t necessarily have to be another person’s boundaries, as that would be legalism, his Boy Meets Girl nonetheless goes on to set up the “first kiss saved for the altar” thing as the new standard for purity. He speaks so highly and so idealistically about saving the first kiss for marriage that anyone who reads his book can’t help but be influenced by his logic and his enthusiasm. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been for couples within that CLC world at that time to not feel a lot of peer pressure to at least give off the impression that they were “lip virgins.”
Yet after the wedding, men and women are given teachings like this one, along with Carolyn’s holding herself up as an example with the stories of never having turned CJ down for sex, even right before her hip replacement surgery, when she no doubt was in a great deal of pain.
On top of all this stuff about how men and women relate to one another, there’s SGM’s previous inappropriate responses to the sex offenders in their midst.
All these things, taken together, present a pretty strange mishmash of hangups.
@ Nickname in #10:
I’d like to add to your list the requirement that C.J. engage in some serious counseling to get to the root of his internal feelings of adequacy that compel him to have such a need to control every aspect of the people and things in his little world.
P.S. Yeah, that handout definitely has a psychedelic 70s flair to it (??????). The whole thing is just totally creepy.
There are no words vile or disgusting enough to describe a man who would require his wife to have sexual relations with him while in excruciating pain or while preparing (mentally, emotionally and physically) for a surgery.
I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Kris’ observations in # 28. Many, many sexual hangups there…not to mention the whole man-controlling environment…. :barf:
When I was a single (never married) woman in my early 20s in the Gathering of Believers days, I used to cringe when I would attend weddings and hear the bride say she would never deny her husband sexually. That used to always creep me out. IF the SGM married couples are having any problems, I would venture to say that these problems stem from the ultra-restrictive approach to male-female relating prior to marriage. When something is presented as being taboo, one tends to think of it as “dirty”….then, BAM!….you’re married and are supposed to be swinging form the rafters. The mind shift (oddly enough, I just created a typo leaving the letter “f” out of the word “shift” which I had to correct…LOL)…the mind shift is sometimes too difficult for some to manage. I know I’ve veered a little from the main point of this thread of posts, but the whole thing points back to some serious emotional deficiencies on the part of C.J. (and probably others in leadership as well) that fuel his intense need to micromanage the world around him. Deep down inside, he’s a cowering, crying little boy, but that surely doesn’t excuse the mass destruction he’s enabled.
CORRECTION: In my post #29, it should read “C.J.’s feeling of INadequacy”…. sorry
After witnessing a couple weddings where the “First Kiss” was at the alter, I wanted hide my eyes. It was very embarassing to witness this display. It wasn’t just a kiss, it was a intimate display of affection that should have been saved for the “First Night”. :barf: :barf: :barf:
I was single, dated and got married at CLC in the 90’s. Generally speaking I saw some of the complaints posted here about the dating process, but to a minor extent. My biggest complaint was that I found it to be more applicable to younger people, as I married a little later in life. But my age group seemed to adopt it a bit too much. IMO. But something worked cuz I got married. Anyway, back on topic. Over the years I have been to 2 SGM marriage retreats, both with the classic male-female sex breakout session. Once was by CJ the other by someone else. The ones I went to the breakout session was given in context with the overall picture of serving one another, and I thought they were useful. As did my wife. Never was it implied if you had the flu you had to perform, or any such thing. AS far as not being taught in the Church. I agree there could be more important things. But it has a place as a discussion in the Church. We are to apply the Bible to all places in our lives. (as most of you would agree). So to me it has an occasional place. Especially for men today. As I think men are failing more so than women in serving there spouses. As far as the actual sex acts, I never heard anything deviant. Most of the lectures were conservative in nature. But I do agree that your body, as well as other things, is also your spouses. You are one flesh. (I didnt mean for any of that to come off as inflamatory)
This crap about giving up your rights to your body when you marry is an abomination and is directly against the healthy concept of loving and caring for oneself. Healthy boundaries don’t go out the window just because you say “I do”. This lack of healthy boundaries is at the core of the abuse of power and the control tactics of SGM. Blech….
I’ll make this my last post….I’ve been hogging the board too much. This whole topic really hits home for me because I was always creeped out by the whole approach to sex, etc., in the SGM environment. It was just another example of manipulation and inappropriate control over others. It cannot be about mutual pleasure when the man is controlling the whole thing. If a man forces himself on his wife when she is ill, but then tries to remember everything he’s supposed to do to please her according to the C.J. Manual of Appropriate Sex, well….me thinks these cats have just missed the boat. If I were the wife, I’d have to say, “You can please me by waiting on me hand and foot until I get better !” (Oh, wait, that’s the WIFE’S job to wait on her spouse hand and foot…I forgot…)
The whole male-dominated environment is nauseating. As a young single woman in Gathering of Believers, I witnessed enough wife abuse to last me a lifetime.
For my personal tastes, CJ could use a little less personal stories though, and still get the point across.
Pampy,
Blog on, Sister!!! I like your posts! :clap :clap :clap
I never heard it preached or implied that it was ever ok to force yourself on a wife.
Remnant, it is fine to take the book literally and say it is steamy. But it is poetic and allegorical language, it is not a science manual. Even if it is literal, it is discreet and veiled language.
You can’t take a verse and say definitively it really means oral sex or anal sex or normal sex, or this or that position or body part, when it is figurative language. You can’t say the fruit is sweet to my taste means some specific thing you think it means….it could be a lot of things I bet none of which are what Driscoll says it is.
CJ, instead of refuting Driscoll’s exegesis and admitting Mac Arthur is correct in his rebuke, seems to be circling the wagons to defend a fellow GospelCoalition money maker, I mean pastor. And so he needs to join the bandwagon that SOS is a technical sex manual. I could be wrong, but seems to me its the standard CJ/SGM procedure, not some deep theological conviction on CJs part.
Pampy,
I appreciate your posts!
—————
5sneakers,
Thanks for the perspective.
I actually agree with you, in that I think the church should teach on sexuality. But it’s the full picture of how SGM does this that (to me) seems…icky. I find it strange that CJ holds up Song of Songs as containing this mysterious yet somehow practical, applicable advice for married couples, but in the end what he says isn’t any more profound than common sense, or what you could learn after a couple of afternoons of watching Dr. Phil.
Also, the way he and Carolyn have historically seemed to hold themselves up as the epitome of all things maritally hot and heavy – well, again, there’s something weird and icky about that.
5sneakers,
My typed my #34 and must have posted it seconds after you posted your #33. I was not replying to your post at all. I was sharing my thoughts about what I perceived and still believe to be very unhealthy practices and beliefs in SGM. I didn’t want you to think I was reacting in any way to what you said.
Kris,
I appreciate the way you always bring things back to the main theme !!! Thank you. You’re right, nothing mysterious or new that couldn’t have been gleaned from an hour with Dr. Phil. And I agree with you and 5sneakers about it being fine to teach about sexuality in church. I don’t have an issue with that.
Buzzing Bee:
“Carolyn taught that there is no valid reason to abstain from sexual relations with your husband except in the case of “prayer” citing I Cor. 7:5. She said it doesn’t matter how you feel (headache, flu, exhaustion, etc.), you give up your rights to your body when you marry.”
Did Carolyn talk about what a man and woman do whem she is having her cycle? (sorry for being a little graphic readers)
I knew the Mahaneys were teaching this stuff. Taking about marital intimacy with your pastor is probably fine to a certain degree but the manner in which they teach it is outside the boundaries of pastoral responsibility,
CJ just did the seminar at the Fairfax church a few weeks ago. Any Fairfax readers want to share how that seminar wemt?
OK,I am creeped out by this level of teaching from a man to a mixed crowd. The Bible, of course, addresses the way a woman loves her husband…and where to go for advice in that department.
Titus 2
1. But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.
2. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.
3. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
4. and so train the young women to love their husbands and children…
Even though C J might love it when men write love poetry to him, he is not, obviously, an “older woman,” is he?
CJ said, “If you do what comes naturally in love-making, almost every time, you will be wrong.”
Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh!!!!!!!! Oh MY GOSH!!!!! That is one of the most telling, bizarre, funny CJ quotes I have heard in a while. OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!
I don’t know WHAT this boy is doing or WHAT comes naturally to HIM but I can tell you that in spite of the fact that I was married to a narcisistic psychopath and had a NIGHTMARE marriage for ever and ever, when it came time to this activity we only did what came naturally and there was nothing ever wrong with it. So if a diagnosed narcisist can not be wrong when just being natural, what the heck is this boy smoking, making people believe that “If you do what comes naturally in love-making, almost every time, you will be wrong.”
What a tragic life. And how many people’s lives is he destroying as he leads them down his sick path.
People, I beg you- DO NOT LET HIS POISON SEEP INTO YOUR SOULS!
“then cautions that Song of Songs is one of the most difficult books of the Bible to understand, right up there with the book of Revelation, and that we should not attempt to comprehend Song of Songs without the help of experts.”
Yeah, the Holy Spirit isn’t enough. We need experts. Like ones who are so twisted that their love making, when done naturally, is wrong. Thank heavens we have leaders like these so we don’t have to bother the Spirit of God who claimed it was HIS job to guide us. What a relief. What have billions of Christians done through centuries without these guys?
Stunned,
That line really got to me, too, especially in light of how we’d recently been discussing how obsessively distrusting SGM is of people’s instincts and feelings in other areas.
And yes, to the CJ and SGM defenders out there, I know that he was actually quoting Ed Wheat, a non-SGM author who is fairly well-respected in the Christian community as a physician and sex expert. But considering everything else SGM teaches about doubting one’s natural inclinations, it fits that CJ would find this particular quotation to highlight.
Once again, the underlying message is that the marital relationship is difficult…and if we are going to be “biblical” about it, we need expert teachers to help us figure out God’s sex manual, Song of Songs…and unless we spend a lot of time working on this and thinking about it, we will be “doing it wrong.”
It’s the same as everything else SGM teaches about every other area of life – if it comes naturally and feels easy, then it’s gotta be wrong.
Which, if you think about it, is the exact opposite of what Jesus said about the Christian life:
Kris said, “But I do think there’s something super-creepy about being instructed on such intimate matters in a church setting.”
Wait. Wait. Wait waitwaitwaitwait… this message was in a SUNDAY service? You’ve got to be wrong. Please, please tell me that CJ has not crossed his one last and final boundary.
When are those white coats coming? This is too crazy.
Travis said, “The weirdest thing about the whole weekend was that we guys were supposed to embrace Solomon’s example and write a poem about C.J. (which is REALLY odd, considering the reason for the poetry in the book!)”
NO no no nonooooooooooooooooooooooooo. This just keeps getting better/worse/creepier!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Oh, the psychological…. I can’t even finish this sentence. No wonder he has always preached so hard against psychology. The field day mental experts would have with this guy! And I thought my ex was a narcissist! bwahahahahaha Man, at least he never had other men write love letters to him. (that I know of)
Stunned,
I believe this was NOT presented on a Sunday. The handout is dated May 6, 2011, which was a Friday.
When I said “in a church setting,” I was referring to the location, which I believe was NOT a married couple’s retreat but instead a presentation given at the church facility.