Rock me, rock me, rock me sexy panel!

And what a marvelous Wednesday it was.

Thumbs up for discussion panels! It's nice to have discourse in chapel and be presented with an opportunity to pose our own questions and thoughts. [No matter how silly some of them may be.]

It may have worked better if the middle school students in attendance hadn't been giggling the entire time . . .

Question: "Are all sexual acts permissible after you are married?"

Jimmy Knight: ". . .Yes. . ."

Skip forward ten minutes.

Question: "My husband does not want to have sex as much as I do, how can we keep the spark going?"

Jimmy Knight: "Well, if I had gotten married and expected to have sex 18 times a day, I would've been disappointed. . .but only slightly. . ."

That's top notch hilarity. Top notch. [Just in case any of us had any questions about what goes on behind the door of the Knight residence. . .]

Dr. Crutcher was especially well spoken this morning, as always. Two thumbs up for articulate, thoughtful reflection.

At one point during a response this morning, Dr. Crutcher flipped the concept of 'sin' on its head. He pointed out, correctly, that certain actions and patterns of living are not 'sinful' because they are in the Bible, but rather they are mentioned in the Bible because God takes issue with them for other reasons. [No way! Really? That is mind-blowing!] The primary question is "Why does God take issue with [insert forbidden act here. [That's what she said.]]?"

I would like to reiterate what I said in yesterday's post. The question about the Christian understanding of sexuality that remains ever unanswered is, "Why does God say that [insert forbidden sexual act] is wrong?" Crutcher's answer to this question is that God has a problem with pre-martial sex [I'm just using that as an example] because that act is detrimental to human relationships. This might be satisfactory as an explanation, except that one could levy the same criticism against almost any form of human relations. Are all non-martial sexual relationships harmful to the individuals involved? Nope. Are some? Yes. Does it make sense to hold the position that non-marital, sexual relationships should be avoided at all costs simply because some of them don't turn out so well?

If that logic held, the church would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

His Holiness contributed a few comments to the discussion this morning. One of my favorites was his assertion that sexualtiy is a community affair. This was later followed by the psychologist's spiel about those who suffer from sex addiction. "Hi, my name is Daedalus, and I am a nymphomaniac." "Hi, Daedalus." Everybody take some rubbers.

One last thing. I think it's probably safe to say that most of the students attending SNU were raised in Christian families. I also think it's safe to say that most children who are raised in Christian families are, to some degree, sexually repressed. [It's inherent in the system.] So, what happens when you put a bunch of sexually repressed college kids together on one campus, away from their homes? In case you haven't already guessed, the answer is that they have sex. I know we're doing it, the administration knows we're doing it, our roommates know we're doing it, and we know we're doing it. So, let's all agree to abide by one rule when it comes to figuring out the sexuality that we were forced to tuck away all those years: If it makes you, or your partner, uncomfortable, don't do it. [Thanks Nicky.]

Oh, and the word "orgasm" was used in chapel today, fulfilling its quota of one use every millenia. [And causing the servers at www.dictionary.com to overheat because of all the students rushing to find out what "orgasm" means.]

"Keep near me and you will be safe"

Daedalus