I've been talking to several devout Christians as of late because I'm trying to associate myself with more people who don't think it's strange that I am so earnestly trying to find my way back to some sort of faithful path or journey after my extended departure from spiritual things. Anyway, during one of these unnerving conversations of rediscovery, sex after marriage came up. We covered a lot of ground, but there was just one thing he said that I still can't get my head around. He said that sex should be done in the most standard of ways, (missionary, I'm assuming?) in all cases when two people are married, but mentioned that that the man "may give the women a bit of oral to help her along if necessary."

I couldn't help but crack up. Is this really how it is? Because I think it's sort of silly, and a bit phony. I can't imagine people not being curious, and wanting to try out new things with the ones they love and trust, but then again, I'm definitely not in a position to fully know why people might be so adamant about holding back sexual expression post-marriage in the first place. He said that the lecturer explained to them that the point of engaging in unimaginative sex was to keep the focus on procreation, but I wonder why people can't do both? He made it seem like you might not want to. He is Catholic, and told me he'd heard these things at a Chastity talk during spring break ... but I don't really know what to think of it all.

my church is big and multi-campus, and it has a campus in my area, and if i could 'get with the program' and be a member, i'd have access to their brand and resource-access for the ministries i'd like to see started. but maybe that is just a lot of power-seeking on my part rather than wanting to help others in order to glorify the Father. and if so, i need to find another church, where i can humble myself to the Body and then pursue ministry development.

i just am bothered by how few serve, but how many consume the sermons of the 'funny' main preaching pastor. and i am bothered that my service as a devoted non-member is resented (again, maybe i am power-seeking and didn't quite realise it til now). certainly i can pass my and my husband's (he is a member) responsbilities on to others, but it would be nice if people didn't think i was being pushy by wanting to contribute, since they clain it is part of the way they win members in the first place ('we get them serving and then bam! they join the church').


i work in ministries that are essential but understaffed to a ridiculous level (despite being a tiny committment). and yet i feel completely denigrated for serving in those ministries with and without my husband. i feel like they don't want me there, and wouldn't let me be a member anyhow. but yet there are only dozens serving thousands, when hundreds should be serving (based on the membership rolls).

and yes, i am not-white and this church is more white-focused than its surrounding cities (that is, they alienate minorities even more than their surrounding towns and cities do).

part of me feels it would be wrong to leave and another part of me feels it would be wrong to stay. i don't know how to decide.

Some churches will do anything to gain converts. I think there's a point where evangelism stops being about the Gospel and more about notches in your Bible belt. Witness these guys.

An Oklahoma church canceled a controversial gun giveaway for teenagers at a weekend youth conference.

Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event's organizers was unable to attend.

The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it’s a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event. The church expected hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada.

Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City

With that said, maybe if I go to church, I can get a free car.