The 30 day approach may just be about publicity, but healthy discussions about sex (not just don't have sex before marriage) are needed in the church. I have a tendency to think that we should be preaching and teaching on the positives of the rules and instructions in scripture. So why do we think that sex is reserved for marriage? I don't think the point was so that we could have hot sex. If we can not say why sex in marriage is good, we have a hard time saying why sex outside of marriage is bad (unless all sex is bad.)

No doubt the church needs to speak a healthy, timely message about God's plan and purpose for human sexuality. But these campaigns sound more like a marketing ploy to me, or an "I dare you" contest in some church staff meeting that got out of hand. If we're not careful, we can end up addressing this important issue with the same shallow, self-gratifying, me-centered approach that runs throughout our warped culture. Maybe the pulpit isn't the place to do all of our counseling and therapy.

I definitely think there needs to be a balance. I do think that the taboo associated with all sex talk that has been the mainstay of much of Christianity for years was unhealthy. The world needs to see the testimony of a Church that is healthy, that makes healthy choices according to righteousness, and I believe marriage can and should be a real blessing if the Lord calls you to that. We should have that testimony.

But the balance is that God has not promised to give you a rosy life. While we might be able to wiggle some promises about joy in marriage and physical health, even from the New Testament, there are also promises of persecution and hatred from the world and rejoicing in "sharing the suffering of Christ". Coming into the Body of Christ because He will "make your life better" is very deceptive. While He offers abundant life, that abundant life is very different from what a worldly mind envisions.

So I guess, per your terms in the article, the balance for me (and my experience in my own marriage), is that great intimacy (including sex) between a husband and wife comes from carrying your cross together, living a self-sacrificial life of dedication to the Lord in righteousness together, not as a part of some self-help, life coaching thing, which is worldly in my estimation and the wrong reason to be a part of the Body of Christ.

Been reading your blog for a while, by the way, and have enjoyed it. Good stuff.

Peace.

A church called “Relevant” did a provocative series on sex. Really?

The Song of Solomon has 8 chapters. Read a chapter a night (before sex), repeat for a total of 4 times through the book. That's 32 nights of romancing through Scripture.

Too many couples use sex as a weapon and if they're committed to "the program", that's a month (or whatever) that weapon would not be used during that time.

If a spouse doesn't have an option of "the cold shoulder" in bed after an argument, they might be more likely to talk it out in a godly way. This would be a good thing.

I had a very wise woman tell me once that "sex is the glue that holds a marriage together." Obviously that's not an absolute, but if we hold to that concept, if sex is the glue, then maybe the worst "the program" will do is encourage couples to think in a "one-flesh" way.

I guess I have a problem when sex is treated as an autonomous subject. Sex is simply intimate relating. It's not a thing or end in itself. Our culture treats sex as a commodity or consumer good and I think the church can play into that paradigm accidentally. Should the church teach on intimate relating? Of course, just as it should teach on all aspects of relationships, which is what the Kingdom message is all about. However, we need to differentiate ourselves from the culture by not treating sex as having marketable value.

I think that when the church gives the correct view of how God views sex, the culture will both love us and hate us. They will love that we do not take the view that sex is only for procreation and cannot be pleasurable. (This is what most nonbelievers think that Christians think about sex.) However they will hate that we proclaim that sex is for heterosexual married couples only and is to be used to the cheif end of glorifying God and enjoying him. But I do think that it is detremental to the gospel for a church to just come out and say, "Oh you like to have sex? We like sex too. We're cool. Come join us."

I'm not going to blast any church for what it is doing. As all of us know, we all will be held accountable to God for the use of what the Spirit has given us. My problem with this "strategy" is that it simply underscores our culture's obsession with sex. It says to me that the church is simply jumping on the cultural bandwagon to gain a crowd. Attendance going "up" doesn't mean anything to me...it is attractional at best; a sell-out at worst. With most of the culture dying for living examples of the Kingdom of God and Christ-like living, it seems ridiculous to spend 40 days doing anything but teaching people how to be transformational and difference making agents in their world. Frankly, my opinion...this is a self-indulgent, self-obsessed, narcissistic strategy.

First off, it must be recognized that this is a very complex issue. Some of the more conservative sub-groups of American Christianity never talk about sexuality in general and sex in particular, so people in these groups (like myself) grew up never hearing much about sex except from today's sensual entertainment. Consequently, we thought it was something bad or dirty.

On the other hand, when I went to a Christian college (I graduated this past May), I was surprised to hear lots about sex through chapel, Bible studies, purity ministries, etc. It was wonderfully freeing to realize that our sexual desires are God-given and good. It's when we satisfy those desires wrongfully that it is sin.

However--and here comes the rub--I'm seeing more and more churches move away from the extreme of "don't ask, don't tell" to "everything we talk about it sex." It's the Church's job to point out "God is everything," and sex is only a small, albeit important, part of the godly life. I am also hearing more off-color jokes in church than ever before. My whole family was trying to listen to a message from Focus on the Family by a well-respected speaker in his 80s, but he kept making so many unnecessary jokes about sex that we turned it off! The audience was laughing in the background at the cheap jokes, but that's not something my 12 year-old sister needs to be thinking about all the time. Nor I, for that matter.

The conclusion of the matter, from my perspective, is to have balance. Pastors and youth pastors, please STOP getting cheap laughs by making off-color sexual jokes. It's dishonoring to the Lord (Eph 4:29) and pollutes people's minds by following the pattern of the world (1 Jn 2:15-16). However, don't hold back from preaching the full Word of God on sexuality (e.g. Heb 13:4), provided it's done appropriately and to the right audience. In addition, the Bible is full of other topics that we need to address today: knowing God, holiness, the spiritual disciplines, love, service, discipleship, etc. It's a question of balance and discernment, rather than running after the world or what other churches are doing.

ROFL!

"I hope they also have plans to increase their children's ministry budget in the coming months."

I see what you did there!

Is this "tell 'em what they want to hear"?

I'm not sure...it does raise eyebrows since most non-believers have a socialized bias, reinforced by the media, that says Christians are politicized, urbane zealot celibates who, given the right amount of opportunity, will dog pile any hot woman, or man, who says "hi" to them. So for me, this will really throw a curve ball into their thinking...I know the first time I heard it my reaction was a confused and baffled "Wha-what?"

"Or are we finally beginning to understand God’s design for sex in marriage?"

On our end of it I think we always known...something to this effect, whether it actually had an affect or not...I don't know.

"Does an emphasis on sexual fulfillment (or financial security, or anger management, or …) distract from the gospel?"

I'll quote C.S. Lewis...
"Satan does not care which extreme you pick, as long as you pick one."

I think anything can distract us...including spreading the gospel to the exclusion of those who love us, so I'll go with the balancing act...till proven otherwise.

I understand the dialectical tension here, and appreciate the attempt to wrestle on both ends of the continuum. In my mind the fact that the church is talking about sex is a good thing overall. I'm not sure about certain specific strategies of local churches, but I do not think that remaining silent on the subject would be a good option. I understand the underlying driving force of this trend to be a general acknowledgment that we over-compartmentalized our spirituality in modern, Western Christianity, and now we are trying to recapture a more holistic approach to faith, one where our relationship with God pervades every area of our lives.

When sex is coupled with a devotional it is a great motivator for establishing the practice of having a couple's devotion. It may be the very first time that a couple begin to have devotionals together. And it is a great way to help couples to communicate with each other on the topic.

Most likely a mix of both telling them what they want to hear and understanding sex properly. I recently worked at a church who wanted to deal with the issue for Christians, but they also talked about how they knew it would draw in the lost. It got marketed with the word sex in bold letters and steamy pictures. Personally, I think it's been good for the church to confront the issue.

I don't think it should be used as a draw for the lost (which works a tiny bit till you move to your next series on grace). When we market it to draw the lost, we are doing everything we complain about when Carls Jr. has Paris Hilton draped on the hood of a car eating a burger. Shock value works for a moment, but shock has to keep becoming more shocking to keep drawing people (ala Howard Stern).

I hope spiritual elements of sex are no longer a hush hush thing in the church, but we shouldn't exploit it for marketing.

I would say, Lighten up.

This is surely the fruit of a generation of young Christians who have fed with unrestrained regularity at the trough of vicarious sexual promiscuity on TV, cable, and film (Friends, SATC, ad nauseum). It's a perfect picture of evangelicalism getting so close to non-Christian culture and values, that it has now adopted those values. We're talking about "super sex" because of media, not because of Scripture.

But what's wrong with this picture? One, small, little, tiny thing--babies. Scripture elevates marital sexuality as a wonderful thing, but it does not do what postmodern young Christians are now trying to do--separate it from God's biblical design for it. When sex is taught by the church as simply a recreational pasttime for married folks, it ignores the clear teaching of Scripture that the ultimate purpose of sex is to make babies, which God says are blessings. Oneness and "Wow!" is great by God's design, but it is a temporal, passing pleasure; creating a new life is the ultimate purpose of sex, and that baby is an eternal, living soul.

So some churches, to get young people in the pew, encourage marriage so they can have the kind of sex they see in media, except that standard is a lie. Of course, the church will also then help those young marrieds prevent that "one little thing" that would get in the way of all that fun, but that God calls a blessing--conception and a baby. And in the name of pastoral counseling, the church will help young couples become little demigods trying to wrest control of their lives from the hands of the big, bad God who wants to inflict them with a baby against their will. (If a baby is conceived, does contraception fail, or does God succeed?) Their cry becomes, "But we just wanted to have fun, God, not have a baby!"

Christian families having children is God's divinely designed strategy for filling the world with righteous followers (evangelism came much later). And, frankly, since we're so into our own pleasure, rather than pleasing God, we're not doing a very good job of following God's strategy. Sorry, but the whole thing sounds like idolatry to me, and you know what God thinks of that.

I would say subtlety is valuable in this situation; in other words, I agree with the message but not the method.

I think the message would be better communicated through things like doctrinal statements and general attitudes. I don't say this so much to "protect" children (not sure where to stand on that) but because I think greater emphasis leaves greater room for error.

In short, I think this is a (moderate) overcorrection from giving the impression that sex is absolutely sinful, even in marriage.

I think this is a matter of the church finding something that it hasn't spoken clearly on or about (other than strict prohibition) and has since decided to immerse itself in it as a way of "outreach."

this reminds me of the emphasis on "porn" in the last few years. I remember a church making it on the news for a "Porn and Pancakes" breakfast outreach for men. I can see the value in that (somewhat) because a) its a major struggle that ANYONE can fall into and b) the Church needs to speak to those needs.

it's (again) a question of balance. silence on sex or blasting it through loudspeakers? Somewhere in the middle perhaps?

grace and peace

Twenty years ago I met Elmer, whose wife Elsie was left a quadriplegic six years or so after they were married. Elmer stayed faithful to Elsie for the rest of her life. By the time she passed away, he had developed Alzheimer's. What would they have felt upon leaving Relevant's service?

My wife now has MS. Frankly, thirty days wouldn't be possible. I have a feeling Relevant's services might be irrelevant to folks like me and Elmer. Some nights I ache wishing things were different. I am glad Relevant is discovering the beauty of sex; but the real point of marriage is laying down my life for my beloved, as Jesus laid down His life for His.

This is a symptom of a greater issue - the marketable Sermon Series. Get on stage, fill the time slot and fill the pews.

The church should be focused on more central issues. Marriage improvement is a wonderful thing to spend time on. It just shouldn't take up "Center stage" so to speak. ;)

Wow Redman61...your post brings a deeply profound and moving perspective to this discussion! Thanks so much for sharing that!

When sex is coupled with a devotional it is a great motivator for establishing the practice of having a couple's devotion.

i've sometimes been in meal-sharing situations where, knowing that everyone is ready to dig in, the one offering the blessing simply says, "the devil sucks. amen."

taking the devotional-before-sex approach above, i think my favorite text would quickly become john 11:35...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Is this just a church trying to reach "itching ears"?

If you believe that worship is about lifting up God, then where is the "worshiping in Spirit and in truth" beyond a 30-day self-help seminar?

Yes, a certain degree of "how-to" needs to be in our messages, but shock'n'awe marketing is a thing of this world.

We're currently in a "Living Christian" message series. Our pastor has covered sexuality in singleness and in committed relationships, but it was all done tastefully and with respect.

It's my prayer that even with the marketing, "Relevant" and others like it did the same.

I think, from reading all the responses, the issue is one of whether the church is to explore messages, programs, etc. with the highest possibility for mass consumption. I bring sex into my messages on a regular basis, as a part of the organic whole of people's lives. The reality is that the single people abstaining and the married people engaging are doing something healthy but does that really merit and entire 30-day program?

how about 30 days of selling all we own? 30 days of fasting (I think that's called "Lent")? 30 days of no stereotyping?

I think the problem is that abstinence from sex may be easier than any of the things above (granted you could fast from sex...)

this post got strange quickly. my apologies.

grace and peace

I can see how people would be concerned about the marketing aspect of the series. But I don't see the overall problem that everyone else is worried about. The Bible talks about sex, so it's a topic that should be taught. Maybe not explicitly from the pulpit every week, but it's certainly relevant to my life. (Oops! I said the R word.)
Covering something up because it embarrasses us is a surefire way to lead people into sin. Making something taboo just turns it into a trap. Sex is just sex. It's a great act of intimacy for a married couple and something we shouldn't be ashamed of, something we should embrace as part of God's design. But it's not the point of my marriage and it's not the point of my life. When we remain silent on a subject, we remove the potential for accountability. Who do you turn to for help if you can't talk about sex and it's a problem in your life? I think more churches need to be saying, "Sex is great in a marriage and something to look forward to in the correct context, but it's quicksand until the context is right." Why should the world have the last say?

There is certainly nothing wrong with a church doing a tasteful, age-appropriate biblical series on sex and the Christian, both for married and unmarried folks - and even children. In fact, I think every church should do this regularly. Where the problem comes in is when sex is used to entice people to come to church. There is no evidence that enticing people for any reason was ever done in the Bible. Even the feeding of the five thousand, though enticing, was done after the people had already arrived and was certainly not advertised up front.

When I was in high school, my Sunday School teacher taught our class through the Song of Solomon - this was in the 1970's so it's not like sex has always been taboo in the church (mine was Conservative Baptist). It seems that there are a significant number of men in leadership roles in the church who are overly obsessed with sex and think if they spend a ton of time talking about it, it will become more satisfying. The "40 nights of great sex" brings Moses to mind and his 40 days and nights on Mt. Sinai. Interestingly, while Moses was up there obtaining the laws that God carved in stone, the children of Israel got bored and demamded a 'golden calf' that they could worship - a takeoff from the Cannanites 'Baal' or bull. Hapi and Hathor were the bull and heifer names and they were symbols of fertility and were closely connected to immoral sexual practices which the Israelites eagerly embraced. Odd, don't you think? God was so mad that He told Moses to leave Him alone so that He could destroy them all. Moses begged and God relented somewhat, but many people were killed that day. Read the 32nd chapter of Exodous. It's quite a story.

Brandon, I agree with your statement, "But to comment on evangelicalism’s apparently growing fascination with sex, I have to wonder what this looks like to nonbelievers."

I recall reading about the time of Ted Haggard's disaster that a few people in his church and the church office were getting a little uncomfortable about his apparent "openness" in talking about the great sex that Christians have. So I would take it as a warning sign when sex is talked about too much. Another thing that worries me is the women in one of our local mega-Southern Baptist churches that get together for sex toy parties. I don't know if this is a trend, but I think it should be concerning. Not that there's anything wrong with it...

We seem to have two different issues: a church willing to teach the Bible and not shirk it's responsibilities there, but also to help people live godly lives in an ungodly world.

We live in a culture that is saturated in unhealthy attitudes about sex - on both extremes. We need churches willing to address the issue of healthy, God-given sexuality.

So, yeah. Married christians should probably have more sex and be willing to talk about it once in a while.

It's one thing to dispel misconceptions about sex that many Christians may have, but doing a series like this may make people feel like there is a "sex every day" standard and may further wound believers who are struggling with sexual dysfunctions.

It is estimated that one in four women has endometriosis and many of those who suffer from that also have some degree of pain or discomfort during intercourse. Women who have been sexually abused may have physical scars that also cause pain or discomfort. Medical treatments often do very little to help these conditions. There are probably a number of men in every congregation who sufffer from performance issues due to trauma or ailments. Medications like Viagra don't help all of these men. When these people, who may be struggling with their spouses to find a way to work around these issues, are 'encouraged' by their church to have sex every day, they will once again feel the waves of depression washing over them and feel even more isolated with their struggles than before.

Please, if you are thinking about running a series like this at your church, keep these people in mind and know that you will be re-opening deep wounds.