HERETIC: BEAM IS A STEP ABOVE PAULK, PEARSON, & OSTEEN
Posted by John Gillmartin under Marriage, Culture, American Exceptionalism, Family Values at 3:58 pm.Joe Beam is the poster boy for Dictionary.com’s unabridged definition of heresy …
her‧e‧sy /ˈhɛrəsi/ Pronunciation [her-uh-see] –noun, plural -sies
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
MSNBC brings us the news of another wolf in sheep’s clothing, and his idea of “One preacher’s message: [To h]ave hotter sex.” The America Unzipped piece goes on to tell us this retired Church of Christ preacher encourages Christian couples to practice cunnilingus and fellatio … all in the name of Jesus!
He also advises Christians to use sex toys and erotic ointments in the marriage bed … in order to open oneself up to the blessings of God. And he charges good U.S. dollars for them to hear him advise it!
Seriously, these fools and reprobates could save a lot of money and time by just subscribing to Heffner’s or Flynt’s filth.
As of this writing Live Vote had recorded 11,723 responses to the question “What do you think of Joe Beam’s preachings? ” Their breakdown was as follows:
“Now this is my kind of religion!”
55% ——————————-“He has a rather creative interpretation of the Bible.”
27% —————-“You call this guy a preacher? I’m appalled!”
18% ————
As I’ve said on many occasions, the Bride of Christ is one sick puppy! Solomon sums it up for me …
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 14:12
Beam’s summation …
If you are a married Christian, not only can you do all this, but you should be doing it.
Remember, this guy is selling this to people in your churches … that is, he is trying to turn your people into perverts.
I’m greatly offended by this man’s theology and teaching; the audacity of him speaking as if he speaks for Scripture!
Jesus is the word; to imply the Word encourages such deviancy is to say the Lord Himself encourages it … and, by implication, that He would actively participate were He in need to do so! Bah! Humbug!
Let me tell you what I really think 
… here is a guy who discovered himself hooked on Internet porn and felt guilty, so he said to himself, “Why should I feel guilty about sex?” He then saw a Neil Clark Warren ad for e-Harmony.com and said, “Eureka! A way to make a living from my perversion … ooppss! Hobby!”
Ergo, Beam is both flush and free from guilt, all in one decision! “PTL, pass the Raspberry, will ya!”
CrossPost: SHEEP’S CRIB
September 21st, 2006 at 4:08 am
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Beam’s message, your implication that he was “hooked on internet porn” is baseless and over the top…smiley face notwithstanding.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:25 am
On one hand I’m in agreement with you. This guy’s a huckster, and to focus an entire ministry on this is akin to Christian pornography.
OTOH, I think your definition of undeviled marriage bed and my definition of undeviled marriage bed are two different things. The things you mention, well, I fail to see the Biblical basis to explicitly call them heresy. I think there are plenty of things you can bring into your marriage bed that would corrupt the spiritual union, but those don’t violate it for me.
(One of the things I love about The Thinklings is y’all are mature enough to talk about things like this, and even mature enough to allow foreigners (otherwise known as non-Texans) such as myself to participate. Thanks for letting me hang out!)
September 21st, 2006 at 11:42 am
How about some Scripture to back up your claims?
It might give your argument a little credibility.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
The Thinklings?
I don’t think you can quote Solomon — man of 1000 concubines — to refute someone arguing for more sensual marital sex. That dog just won’t hunt.
I’m really not sure why you’d accuse Mike at Ocular Fusion of being a reprobate. Isn’t that a bit strong? He gave it the most tepid endorsement possible. I think you’re sounding a bit like the crew at Slice of Laodicea.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I tend to agree with Gaddabout’s first two paragraphs.
I think as a vestige of Victorian prudery, Christians have been embarrassed by even the idea of sex — so much so that we’ve taken the Song of Solomon, a beautiful book of Hebrew love poetry, and allegorized into a story about Christ and the Church (I wonder what Jews think about that). The SoS is a highly erotic and descriptive love story. I take from it that God designed our bodies to give pleasure to our spouses in many and varied ways.
And I take 1 Cor 7:3-5 to be God’s commands that we give pleasure to our spouses as part of a loving, self-giving marital relationship. We may not force or demand, but we are commanded not to deprive one another of sexual intimacy.
Has our culture become over-sexualized? No doubt. Is there a real danger to Christians? Of course. But the answer to libertinism is not legalism or asceticism. God gives us an incredible amount of freedom and expects us to use it wisely and lovingly.
Any sexual activity can be taken to an unhealthy extreme, but I don’t see anything wrong with married couples enjoying each others’ bodies with all the freedom and abandon described in the Song of Solomon.
I’d be interested to know from Scripture why John Gillmartin thinks oral sex is per se deviant and perverse.
I don’t know anything about Joe Beam beyond what I’ve read here. But I agree with Ray that your assertions are uncharitable, to say the least.
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:18 am
Several comments:
(1) Why am I reading about this on RedBlueChristian, a blog devoted to discussing Christian involvement in the political arena? Has RBC already declined into a free-for-all-blog about anything that strikes one’s fancy?
(2) Why do you feel it important to call Joe Beam to our attention in the first place? Out of all of the topics vying for our attention, what is it about this information that you believe deserves our attention? My theory is that you just enjoy surfing the Internet for sensational things (or at least what you consider sensational) — and then shaking your finger at it.
(3) How in the world did you aquire the authority to deem this man a “heretic,” or the Christians who attend his seminars as “fools” and “reprobates”? You begin by citing that great theological tome, Dictionary.com, for its definition of heresy. A teaching at variance with orthodox doctrine, it says. Please tell us exactly what teaching of Mr. Beam you consider at variance with orthodox doctrine. Don’t waste our time telling us how Mr. Beam’s teachings ruffle your personal sensibilities. Please tell us what orthodox doctrine is at question, citing a suitably authoritative code (e.g., the Scriptures, a denominational doctrinal statement) where that doctrine is recorded.
(4) I read your post, and I read the article about Mr. Beam to which you linked. On every score — your thirst for sensationalism, your reckless slander of fellow Christians, your equating orthodox doctrine with your own personal inhibitions — I find your post much more offensive than anything I read about Mr. Beam.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Curious where exactly the Bible prohibits Oral Sex between a man and his wife.
I also agree that the tone of this does not seem to be consistent with Red/Blue Christian, which I really think is a great site.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:32 am
Terry et al -
I’ve decided to post my response to your comments at
The SHEEP’S CRIB if you care to read the first of a two part response.
HE ALONE IS WORTHY
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 am
Jeff -
Curious where exactly the Bible prohibits drug use between a man and his conscience … or where exactly the Bible mentions the Rapture or the Age of Accountability?
Sometimes it’s not good enough to envision the statue alone; the sculptor must chip away what is in the way to show others what he alone sees. Go see my response.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I am glad you took time to post the justification for your ideas over at your other web site. But I guess I still have some questions/concerns/bones to pick.
Regarding your drug use argument above, I know full well there are issued that Scripture does not speak directly and in that case one has to look at the intent of Scripture rather then the actual words.
So in that respect I knew fully well that the Bible does not speak directly to the issue of oral sex. So then we have to ask ourselves, what is the intent of sex at all? Why did God create it? If sex were intended to be purely for reproduction, then oral sex is clearly wrong. But if his intent is, as I think, for oneness to occur then these issues become a little harder to figure out.
In my mind if oral sex, for a husband and wife, strengthens their marital bond, does not make one or the other feel less valuable, and does no harm, then it is well within the freedom we have in Jesus.
Regarding your statement that a sculpture must chip away, where does the chipping stop? This is going to seem like I am being smart and I do not intend it this way, but where exactly is the line drawn. These are serious questions.
Where is it and where is it not acceptable to kiss your spouse?
One’s leg is not a sexual organ, but if a spouse rubs it up against their partner’s sexual organ for stimulation as foreplay is that a sin?
If a woman does not achieve orgasm without some other form of stimulation, say a hand, has that person sinned in providing the stimulation? Has the wife sinned in receiving it?
I would recommend the book, Sacred Sex. You can find it on my Amazon I-Store found here.
http://astore.amazon.com/rareleadershi-20
Finally this, I am sure you are flustered by people disagreeing with you but I admire you for allowing for comments to appear.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Apologies to my confusion as to where I was posting. I think the Osteen reference threw me.
My first two paragraphs still stand.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Final comments on this post up at The CRIB.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Here’s what I see, after attempting to boil off all the ad hominems and hyperbolic charges and wringing of hands at where society is going and other charged language.
John Gillmartin makes a claim that certain sexual practices in the context of marriage are wrong, and that Beam’s teaching of them is contrary to our faith.
Terry and Jeff ask John to substantiate these claims. The appeals appear to me to request scriptural and/or rational support for the claim.
John’s response quotes scripture relevant to this general area, but alas seemingly open to interpretation as regards the details. He mostly argues from tradition (”when has an orthodox body ever countenanced such”) and from nature (”have we lost all decency and civility?”).
I think this could be a very interesting discussion, but at this point, the real content is being overwhelmed by the rhetoric.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Your accessment of Mr. Beam’s interview is silly and outrageous! What a mammoth leap you make by taking a man’s view that oral sex is not a sin to saying he is addicted to pornography! What a judgmental, illogical and just plain silly accusation to make. You don’t know Joe and don’t have any proof. If you disagree, fine. But to slander him? Pathetic! I’ve lost respect for you and will not read your little blog again.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:18 am
This is my first time visiting this site. I saw it referenced in Mark D. Roberts blog and decided to check it out.
I can certainly see why a subject like this will cause anxiety for many. Sex was a taboo subject in the home I grew up in and I can relate to the “feeling guilty” or “feeling dirty” even when married. While some can certainly take this to sinful extremes, I find it refreshing that someone like Beam has the courage to stand up and talk about it openly and from a Biblical perspective. Nature abhors a vacuum and for far too long we, as Christians, have relinquished this subject to the likes of Hefner and Flint.