 Posted Friday, July 27, 2007 10:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Melissa,
I'm so glad you asked this important question!
I was introduced to CS at age 10 and raised in it until I left home during college years. I, too, remember sex as being a rather taboo subject. I used to attribute my mother's hesitancy to discuss it to her shyness or sheltered upbringing, but soon discovered that some other Christian Scientists also had a strange attitude towards the purpose of sexuality. We knew of an elderly married couple who claimed to have abstained from what most people would consider a "normal" sexual relationship throughout their married life, thinking it was making them more spiritual. They were childless and lived as brother and sister.
Another close CS friend's marriage ended because he chose to abstain from sex while married, also in an effort to "grow spiritually". This seemed so weird to me as a teenager. It gave me the subtle message that sex was considered by serious students of CS to be counter-productive to "spirituality". It's all part of the CS belief that we are supposed to be "progressing" from a material to a spiritual outlook on life, moving away from the pleasures & pains of the material body to loftier ideals etc. etc.
This is so contrary to what I've learned since coming out of Christian Science: that God specifically designed sex as the ultimate expression of intimacy within marriage, and that the Creator carefully designed our bodies to experience pleasure. (In Christian Science I was taught that God did not design/create our physical bodies, and in fact knows nothing of the "physical" realm.) I've also come to see that limiting sex to marriage is not meant as a restrictive measure so much as it is a protective measure to avoid all the things that can go drastically wrong when it's experienced outside of marriage.
Thanks for opening up this important subject for discussion! : )
Barb
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Jesusmyhealer,
It struck me as odd that Ginny would respond, but I said nothing.
However, no one can answer why she posted better than Ginny herself in her article “Love and Sexuality.” She states: “Chastity really means purity and wholeness. The cement of any relationship is the chastity of it, the purity of it. Chastity doesn’t mean stagnation; it means pure unselfishness, loving with your whole heart, because God is Love. I remind myself when dealing with sexual questions in my marriage: ‘I’m here to express Love in this relationship. How can I best do that?’” I’d say that Ginny is being very unchaste by replying on this discussion group. She must be very insecure about any comments about her talk, why else would she respond? Maybe, she is vying for a higher post in her church and is making sure nobody stops it from happening. Clearly, she's taking a selfish (unchaste) approach. It would have been better if Ginny had "Resist[ed] the devil, and it will flee from you" as she advises in her article in terms of being submissive to her husband's sexual advances.
Ginny goes on to say: “Being chaste isn’t so much about what you shouldn’t be doing, as much as it is about being what you are as God sees you.” I can’t believe God told Ginny to post on this discussion group. The count is now 4 issues of the Sentinel involving the article and letters in response to the article. I think the article itself was written in a interesting manner but it’s a totally different message than what she gives her talk on. Maybe that's why the church printed the article, because they are aware of this discrepancy. However, this is very misleading! I don’t know why a church would allow this to happen. The letters in reponse to her article indicate a lot of confusion regarding “What is Spirituality?” and “What is Sexuality?” and how the two can be interlinked. They may even be misunderstanding that sexuality and sensuality need not be the same thing. I think her supporters who responded are as confused as Ginny still seems to be. I really wonder whether, even as a married woman, Ginny likes and enjoys sex, or as she puts it “having love.” And, I don’t think this is a Christian Science issue. Ginny, apparently, did not have any moral or religious upbringing, and started her licentious life at a very early age. I think her early relationships with men including her father have impacted her ability to be intimate with her husband and respect his physical and emotional needs. (My impression from the article is that she's using her holiness as a smokescreen to dealing with these issues. Others in Christian Science and others on some spiritual or religious path with relationship issues may be doing this as well.) It would be interesting to have someone who specializes in sexual issues read the article and comment on the article, if they can understand it. I'm still interested in hearing what others have experienced. I don't think religion should be used as a barrier to proper sexual communication in relationships. Melissa!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
Melissa,
You and others on this forum might like to read the works of Dr. Doug Weiss. He appears to be an authority of sexual related issues for believers and non-believers. To his credit, he has a Ph. D. from a theological seminary. He has appeared on a number of popular TV talk shows. His website is www.drdougweiss.com.
He offers solid bible-based advice on intimacy. He advocates abstinence for those who are not married.
I did have the opportunity of reading the Luedemann article and agree with your observations. Without the assistance of experts in the field of sexual relationships, I feel the Church of Christ, Scientist is not in a position to deal logically and emotionally on these issues. The TMC Youth website also seems like its an advice column for the blind leading the blind.
Blessings,
Harry S.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Lia (7/18/2007)
I'm wondering how others who were raised as Christian Scientists were told about sex and handled sex related issues in their Christian Science homes and churches.
Hi fellow grad student! I haven't posted in a while because I've been overseas. I was not raised as a Christian Scientist, but I am marrying into a CS family. My fiance and his siblings attended public school but were never allowed to participate in health or sex education classes. Their parents never talked about sex except to tell them not to do it before marriage. My fiance is a curious-minded person (and not CS anymore) so he basically learned about puberty and sex from biology textbooks. His siblings (currently attending Principia) do not know how sex works (what goes where) or other sex-/puberty-related issues, such as how a woman's menstrual cycle works. They were very sheltered growing up.
If going to Principia now is anything like it was in the 70's, trust me, the siblings know enough about sex and how it works. The old adage of 3 ways to get anything done applies here..
Do it yourself, pay someone to do it, or FORBID YOUR CHILD from doing it.
There was an enormous amount of all three going on at the Saint Louis campus when I attended Prin. There was not, however, any instruction on responsibility, safety, how to deal with emotions, or what to do if a pregnancy occurred. The concept of Prin educating the whole man was a farce then, and may still be today. I cannot speak to that point, having broken all ties with Prin, Prino's, and the CS "experience" in the late 70's. I have a fulfilling life, with healthy sex, a marriage, a career, friends, and a set of values I hold dear... but none of it came directly from my Prin experience. The "leaders" at Prin fail miserably at producing a good product to the world.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:09 PM
|
|
|
|
| Hi Melissa, I am a current freshman at Principia College in Elsah, IL, which is an institution dedicated to serving the cause of Christian Science. I was raised by two devoted Christian Science parents, but sex was never a taboo subject in my household. In fact, if anyone was suppressing discussion about sex in my household, it was I. I generally found the topic of sex to be too awkward to discuss with family members. My younger brother, however, seemed to talk about sex with my parents fairly frequently when I lived with them. My beliefs about sex did not largely arise as a result of parental influence. I came to most of my conclusions myself, in contradistinction to my parents' beliefs. I can tell you that as far as I know (that is, in accordance with the outward signs) there is no uniformity of opinion within the Christian Science community about sex. But I feel that I am not exactly qualified to make that judgment. It has been my experience, however, that adult adherents of Christian Science seem to see no problem with sex within the confines of marriage. In fifteen plus years of attending Christian Science branch churches, I don't believe I've ever met a local church member who advocated extramarital sexual relations. In the third chapter of the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, there are some tantalizing hints about sexual doctrine (and probably even more in other parts of the book). The way I interpret these statements, they are grossly contradictory, but that all depends on your interpretation. I know people who claim that there are no contradictions in the CS textbook, and their interpretation of it (which is as valid as mine) supports this belief. For whatever that's worth. Leonarde
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Another close CS friend's marriage ended because he chose to abstain from sex while married, also in an effort to "grow spiritually". This seemed so weird to me as a teenager. It gave me the subtle message that sex was considered by serious students of CS to be counter-productive to "spirituality". It's all part of the CS belief that we are supposed to be "progressing" from a material to a spiritual outlook on life, moving away from the pleasures & pains of the material body to loftier ideals etc. etc.
I finally booted my CS husband out of the house and out of my life and this is the exact same reason. I have lived without physical and emotional intimacy with my husband for a shocking number of years. One day I finally asked him if it was because of CS. He said..."I pray daily against sin, disease and physical sensation. " I thought...thats it....you're are outta here. Go live by yourself. The time you spend talking to me you could be praying some more. Maybe it will help you get those elusive healings. Yeah, thats what LIFE is all about...not living it.... but reading and chanting what MBE said about what it really is...a dream...a bad dream.
Square Peg
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:30 PM
|
|
|
|
mellisa
I am a life long CS and spent considerable time working and going to school with Christian Scientists. What you witnessed has so little to with the profound doctrine of the religion but more on the very odd culture that has grown up around the religion. Since many upscale "CS" folk are isolated from many of the issues of the secular world they are astounded at the stories you heard, while people like you (and me) that have many experiences that include such people are not as impressed. I suspect what you did witness was a close family with shared values--and that is good. What is not so good is such profound isolation from the issues of the "real world" often make for real challenges when or if the kids venture into the world of real challenges.
I urge you not to judge too quickly those you lived with, but take some time and do some research and you will find Dr. Wayne Dyers most recent book something that is very close to CS and relevant. Then reading Science and Health might make the contemporary life of CS a bit clearer. The "magazines" you mentioned are the mouthpiece of the church leaders and are at times right on, and others nothing more than than a group of upscale, secular white men and women who have no real world business experience "lecturing". Quite moments of seeking peace and spiritual harmony will guide you. Bless you. e
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:16 PM
|
|
|
|
[Moderator's note: this post was originally written in all caps, a practice that Internet etiquette interprets as shouting. I took the unusual step of applying a tool to make it mixed case for readability.]
Melissa,
The person you heard talk has taken a lot of grief for her article in the sentinel ---some saw it as just endorsing free sex, others (like me) saw it as a refreshing look at the present day and how Christian Scientists need to address the issue. I suspect you will not find such articles in the future since the church board and the editors took a lot of heat and they just dont have the courage to do it again when they are also out there pitching for dollars (this issue i know first hand). I have worked and been published at the church and in the church magazines--and I suspect this will not make everyone happy.
I urge you to read the above post from "E" since I think she is right on. I was married for a long time, and my sex life as a CS was painfully reflective of my partners desire not to figure out the "desire for perfection" and reality. I am now remarried and my sex life was and is healthy and joyful. i would never ever think of getting married without determining our sexual compatablity and I urge all young and older Christian Scientists to think this way.
Please dont judge the religion on the people running the church or living it, judge it by what it has done for people. and never ever ever let someone tell you you cannot heal if you have sex before your are married of if you have a drink. that is a Protestant and Methodist tradition that was dragged into a religion whose clear and concise membership requirements in the application written my Mrs Eddy could have and did not include it.
Good for your email.
Me
[Original]
MELISSA,
THE PERSON YOU HEARD TALK HAS TAKEN A LOT OF GRIEF FOR HER ARTICLE IN THE SENTINEL ---SOME SAW IT AS JUST ENDORSING FREE SEX, OTHERS (LIKE ME) SAW IT AS A REFRESHING LOOK AT THE PRESENT DAY AND HOW CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. I SUSPECT YOU WILL NOT FIND SUCH ARTICLES IN THE FUTURE SINCE THE CHURCH BOARD AND THE EDITORS TOOK A LOT OF HEAT AND THEY JUST DONT HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO IT AGAIN WHEN THEY ARE ALSO OUT THERE PITCHING FOR DOLLARS (THIS ISSUE I KNOW FIRST HAND). I HAVE WORKED AND BEEN PUBLISHED AT THE CHURCH AND IN THE CHURCH MAGAZINES--AND I SUSPECT THIS WILL NOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.
I URGE YOU TO READ THE ABOVE POST FROM "E" SINCE I THINK SHE IS RIGHT ON. I WAS MARRIED FOR A LONG TIME, AND MY SEX LIFE AS A CS WAS PAINFULLY REFLECTIVE OF MY PARTNERS DESIRE NOT TO FIGURE OUT THE "DESIRE FOR PERFECTION" AND REALITY. I AM NOW REMARRIED AND MY SEX LIFE WAS AND IS HEALTHY AND JOYFUL. I WOULD NEVER EVER THINK OF GETTING MARRIED WITHOUT DETERMINING OUR SEXUAL COMPATABLITY AND I URGE ALL YOUNG AND OLDER CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS TO THINK THIS WAY.
PLEASE DONT JUDGE THE RELIGION ON THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE CHURCH OR LIVING IT, JUDGE IT BY WHAT IT HAS DONE FOR PEOPLE. AND NEVER EVER EVER LET SOMEONE TELL YOU YOU CANNOT HEAL IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE YOUR ARE MARRIED OF IF YOU HAVE A DRINK. THAT IS A PROTESTANT AND METHODIST TRADITION THAT WAS DRAGGED INTO A RELIGION WHOSE CLEAR AND CONCISE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPLICATION WRITTEN MY MRS EDDY COULD HAVE AND DID NOT INCLUDE IT.
GOOD FOR YOUR EMAIL.
ME
|
|
|
|