The Kama Sutra

I have waited months to write these entries. My desire to address the value of the Kama Sutra is one of the reasons I started this blog. Finally, I have the opportunity to embrace real controversy.

I once dreamt of church adult Sunday School rooms plastered with copies of pages from the sexually explicit ancient Indian sex manual (the Kama Sutra) demonstrating numerous
(24-39) positions that can help maximize the joy of intercourse. I've come to see that the clamor against such an action would minimize its value. I do think something has to be done to help the Church re-think its attitude towards orgasm - something that would energize its members' sex lives.

Is it even right to look at the book's anatomically correct drawings of almost entirely clothed Indian couples having intercourse in a wide array of positions? Is this pornography? If you sit alone masturbating at the drawings, I guess it's pornography. If you use it to bring joy back into unrelenting monogamy, I'd say it's instruction.

The question is, why do American Christians need so much help to enjoy sex? It starts with a faith that is often confused about the relationship between the body and the flesh, which teaches a high standard about fighting lust "in the heart." It continues with a founder who was abstinent and encouraged His disciples to serious consideration of this form of sexuality and a later Apostle, Paul, who followed Jesus' encouragement personally and was reluctant to endorse marriage in one area of his travels (the city of Corinth).

If sex is not sinful, why all this energy to have people restrain themselves? Jesus understood several important things: the expansion of the Kingdom of God would not come through procreation, but evangelism; there would be a great need for mobility and quick relocation among His First Century disciples as they grew the faith; everyone would be persecuted; and there would be little time for quality family time while ducking stones fired at you by irate, displaced workers in the idol makers' union.

more, more, more . . .